Defense counsel
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Potential Defense Witnesses
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
U.S. Attorney's Office
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Potential Defense Witnesses
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
Defense team
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Defense Staff
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Defense Experts/Advisors
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Appeals of Office's decisions to Washington. | Washington | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel's tactics in negotiating with AUSAs, including challenging resolutions collaterally. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel arguing against victim notification letters | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Federal investigation of Epstein | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | In camera conference | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel review of nude images | FBI | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion and disagreement between Villafaña and Lourie regarding an immigration waiver in the p... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña informed defense counsel that Lourie rejected the proposed immigration language. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Presentation of the document to defense counsel, with two terms dropped from Villafaña's draft: o... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations with Main Justice and Southern District | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Joint Defense Agreement Discussion | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | Signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meeting between the prosecution team and Epstein's defense counsel where the U.S. Attorney reaffi... | Unspecified (likely U.S. At... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Attorney Visits | MDC Attorney Visiting Room | View |
| N/A | N/A | Expected testimony of law enforcement agents | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness 'Carolyn' throws binder of evidence in distress during cross-examination. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination testimony regarding grooming tactics. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror 50 Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussions with SDNY | New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Civil litigation service attempt | Southern District (NY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Seating of the Jury | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal trial where witnesses testified and were cross-examined. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Breakfast meeting between Acosta and Defense Counsel. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | In-person legal visit where guards read legal notebooks, denied water, and monitored conversation... | MDC Conference Room | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001361.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details the conditions of confinement for an unnamed female defendant at the MDC. It outlines that while in-person attorney visits are available seven days a week in rooms with HEPA filters, her defense counsel has opted for remote communication via VTC, email, and phone. The document also describes the facility's standard procedures for mail processing and the multiple daily and weekly pat-down and body scan searches the defendant undergoes.
DOJ-OGR-00001359.jpg
This document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney to Judge Alison J. Nathan providing an update on Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement conditions at the MDC. The Government asserts that Maxwell receives exceptional access to discovery materials (13 hours/day, 7 days/week) via both a laptop and desktop. A footnote addresses complaints regarding missing emails, stating that an investigation revealed Maxwell deleted or archived them herself, with no evidence of MDC staff misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00001339.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated April 12, 2021, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's request for temporary release. It asserts that Judge Nathan did not abuse discretion in denying release because Maxwell has ample resources, including 'highly qualified' counsel and extensive access to computers (13 hours/day) to review discovery at the MDC. Footnotes clarify legal precedents and note that in-person attorney visitation at the MDC resumed in February 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001250.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's proposed bail conditions, asserting that her financial proposal is vague and would leave her with ample resources (over $3.5 million plus future income) to flee prosecution. The filing contends that the proposed financial monitorship creates a conflict of interest and that the defendant's pending pretrial motions do not weaken the strength of the government's case. The author urges the Court to reject the defendant's proposal, concluding she remains a significant flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001229.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling denying a defendant's request for release from pre-trial detention. The Court finds that the government has shown the defendant is a flight risk and rejects her argument that her conditions of confinement, including a recent COVID-19 lockdown, unconstitutionally interfere with her ability to prepare her defense. The Court concludes she has been given adequate time and resources to communicate with her attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00001175.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government, argues that the defendant housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) has been given sufficient resources to prepare for trial, refuting a defense claim to the contrary. The filing details the defendant's access to discovery materials via hard drives, a dedicated laptop, and a desktop computer, as well as arrangements for regular video and phone calls with her legal counsel. It asserts that these accommodations, even with pandemic-related restrictions, are adequate for trial preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00001166.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing (likely opposing bail) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that the defendant is a flight risk, noting that she actively hid from law enforcement and the media, and that her lawyers refused to disclose her location to the Government despite ongoing communications in 2019 and 2020. The text details the circumstances of her arrest, stating that she ignored FBI directives and ran away from clearly identified agents to hide in an inner room.
DOJ-OGR-00001125.jpg
This document is a page from a defense motion filed on December 14, 2020, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell did not attempt to evade arrest or flee. Defense counsel claims the 'raid' on her New Hampshire home was unnecessary and theatrical, timed to the anniversary of Epstein's arrest. It addresses specific allegations, such as a cell phone wrapped in tin foil, explaining these were security measures against the press, supported by a statement from the (redacted) head of her security team.
DOJ-OGR-00001076.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues against the notion that the defendant would have surrendered if asked. The speaker asserts the government arrested the defendant due to a serious flight risk and points to the defense counsel's uncooperative behavior in a separate civil case as further evidence of untrustworthiness. The speaker concludes by noting the lack of a substantive response regarding the defendant's finances.
DOJ-OGR-00001056.jpg
This document is page 115 of a court transcript from April 1, 2021, involving a defense attorney arguing before a judge regarding bail conditions for a female client (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell). The attorney rebuts the government's claim that the client is a flight risk or 'hiding out,' arguing instead that she has been actively litigating civil cases since 2015 and denying impropriety regarding Mr. Epstein. The attorney also notes that a plaintiff seeking millions of dollars had spoken earlier in the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00001009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed April 1, 2021) documenting a videoconference hearing involving Ghislaine Maxwell and her attorney, Mr. Cohen. Ms. Maxwell is participating from the MDC in Brooklyn. The court confirms technical connectivity, establishes protocols for private attorney-client conversations via breakout rooms, and acknowledges receipt of a 'waiver of physical presence' form signed by Maxwell on July 10, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00000812.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court order filed on July 18, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The Court denies the adequacy of Epstein's proposed bail package, citing a lack of audited financial statements and criticizing the defense for providing only a cursory one-page asset summary totaling over $559 million. The Court characterizes the defense's conditional offer to provide better financials only if bail is granted as 'disingenuous' for a man of Epstein's wealth and financial experience.
DOJ-OGR-00000809.jpg
This legal document details the extensive financial assets of a defendant, including hundreds of millions in equities and numerous high-value properties, to argue against a bail package. The government contends that these assets, along with recently discovered cash and diamonds, provide the defendant with the means to flee the jurisdiction. The document also references the defendant's past alleged criminal conduct, including working with associates to exploit minors.
DOJ-OGR-00000808.jpg
This legal document details the arguments between the prosecution (Government) and the defense regarding a foreign (Austrian) passport found in the possession of the defendant, Mr. Epstein. The defense claims Epstein acquired it from a friend in the 1980s for protection during Middle East travel and never used it, while the government argues its existence, along with stamps from various countries and its issuance under an alias, indicates he is a serious flight risk. The document also notes that the defense submitted an asset summary showing Epstein possesses over $56 million in cash.
DOJ-OGR-00000794.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court filing (Document 32) dated July 18, 2019, regarding the detention of Jeffrey Epstein. It details testimony from victim Courtney Wild, who requested Epstein remain in detention for public safety, and discusses the court's concern that Epstein poses an uncontrollable threat to young girls. The text contrasts the prosecution/court's view of Epstein's 'addictive sexual nature' with Defense Counsel's arguments that Epstein was disciplined and not an 'out-of-control rapist.'
DOJ-OGR-00000789.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 18, 2019, details arguments surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's bail. It outlines the government's allegations that Epstein's employees facilitated the trafficking of minors to his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach. The document also presents the defense counsel's counterarguments, asserting that Epstein is not a flight risk due to his history of returning to the U.S. after extensive travel and his willingness to provide full financial disclosure to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00000663.jpg
This court transcript from a hearing on September 3, 2019, details an argument by Ms. Comey against the court conducting its own investigation into the death of Mr. Epstein. She informs the court that an active and separate investigation is already being conducted by a grand jury, Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Southern District of New York, and the FBI. Ms. Comey asserts that such an investigation is the proper function of these entities, not the court, especially concerning uncharged matters.
DOJ-OGR-00000649.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated September 3, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A representative for the government is addressing the court, stating that despite the dismissal of the indictment, related investigations and the possibility of civil asset forfeiture will continue. The speaker also confirms that defense counsel is complying with a protective order to return discovery materials and reaffirms the government's commitment to the victims of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000613.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein), filed on August 6, 2019. The text details a scheduling conference where prosecutor Ms. Moe proposes an October 31 deadline for discovery. She notes a specific exception regarding materials seized from the defendant's New York residence, which the F.B.I. is currently reviewing, necessitating a privilege-review protocol with defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00000601.jpg
This document is page 7 of a Protective Order from a legal case (1:19-cr-00490-RMB), filed on July 25, 2019. It details the rules for handling confidential information by the Defendant and Defense Counsel, including restrictions on possession, inspection under law enforcement protection, and a prohibition on duplication. The order also specifies the procedure for sharing information with 'Designated Persons' and requires the eventual return or destruction of all discovery materials to the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00000599.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) dated July 25, 2019. It defines "Confidential Information," which can include personal data and witness identities, and sets forth strict rules for how this information must be handled by the defendant and their Defense Counsel. The rules govern the use, storage, review, and disclosure of the sensitive material throughout the legal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00000598.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court order from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on July 25, 2019, related to Jeffrey Epstein. The order prohibits the defense team (including the Defendant, counsel, staff, and experts) from publicly filing any information from the Discovery materials without prior authorization from the Government or the Court. It mandates that any court filings incorporating Discovery information must be filed under seal and also addresses the handling of materials marked as "confidential" by the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00000597.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a Protective Order filed on July 25, 2019, in the case USA v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). It outlines strict protocols for handling 'Discovery' materials, including requirements for encryption and password protection when sharing with defense staff or experts. It explicitly prohibits the Government, the Defendant, or Counsel from posting any discovery information on the Internet or social media.
DOJ-OGR-00000596.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on July 25, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The order establishes strict rules for handling discovery materials, stipulating they are for defense purposes only and cannot be copied or transmitted by the defendant. It specifies that only the Defense Counsel can disclose the information to a limited group of 'Designated Persons,' including defense staff, experts, and others authorized by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00000592.jpg
This is page 7 of a court filing (Document 37-1) from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein), filed on July 25, 2019. It outlines strict protocols for a Protective Order regarding discovery materials, specifically prohibiting the Defendant from possessing materials outside the presence of counsel or copying them. It also establishes requirements for 'Designated Persons' to sign agreements before receiving confidential information and mandates the return or destruction of discovery materials at the case's conclusion.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Defense counsel | $0.00 | Expenditures for professional services in her d... | View |
| 2020-08-13 | Received | Government officials | Defense counsel | $0.00 | Production of discovery totaling more than 150,... | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Defense counsel | $7,000,000.00 | Retainer paid to attorneys mentioned in governm... | View |
Maxwell Reply at 23
Argument that Rule 606 violates Maxwell's constitutional rights to due process and confrontation.
Maxwell Br.
Arguments for a new trial (referenced at pages 12-14, 28, 39-43).
Rule 404(b) Letter
A letter identifying evidence/witnesses intended for trial, though defense argues it lacked required reasoning.
Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding
Counsel to discuss the waiver with the defendant.
Legal consultation
In-person visits available 7 days a week but declined by counsel
Legal consultation
VTC calls and supplemental phone calls
Legal consultation
Defendant is able to send and receive emails every day
Epstein case
The document mentions that OPR's evaluation was aided by 'extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the government and defense counsel' which described interactions and decisions.
Ms. Maxwell's case
The document mentions defense counsel's contact with prosecutors in the months leading up to Ms. Maxwell's arrest.
Encrypted Discovery materials
Defense Counsel must encrypt and/or password protect Discovery when disseminating it via means other than electronic mail.
Encrypted Discovery materials
Defense Counsel must encrypt and/or password protect Discovery when disseminating it via means other than electronic mail.
Disagreement with 'Confidential' designation of materials
The document outlines a procedure for Defense Counsel to formally notify the Government if they do not concur with the designation of certain documents or materials as Confidential Information.
Disagreement with 'Confidential' designation of materials
The document outlines a procedure for Defense Counsel to formally notify the Government if they do not concur with the designation of certain documents or materials as Confidential Information.
Discovery
The document outlines a rule that if Discovery is disseminated via means other than electronic mail, Defense Counsel must encrypt and/or password protect it.
Discovery
The document outlines a rule that if Discovery is disseminated via means other than electronic mail, Defense Counsel must encrypt and/or password protect it.
Legal Consultation
Defense counsel will be able to schedule legal calls for the defendant on weekends as needed.
Insufficiency of asset statement for bail package
The Court advised Defense counsel that the Defendant's asset statement was 'cursory' and insufficient to support a bail package because it was not verified and lacked details on expenses, indebtedness, or liabilities.
Ms. Maxwell's case
Defense counsel had contact with prosecutors in the months leading up to Ms. Maxwell's arrest.
Access to client
Defense counsel made a request to the MDC for access to their client and was granted access within three hours, even though the request was made after business hours with no notice.
Legal consultation
The document mentions a scheduling system at the MDC that defense counsel can use to request regular calls with their client.
Discovery materials
The document stipulates that when Discovery is disseminated via means other than electronic mail, Defense Counsel is required to encrypt and/or password protect it.
Carolyn's first meeting with the defendant
The document recounts a cross-examination where the defense counsel attempted to skip over the first meeting between Carolyn and the defendant, but Carolyn corrected him.
Carolyn's first meeting with the defendant
The document recounts a cross-examination where the defense counsel attempted to skip over the first meeting between Carolyn and the defendant, but Carolyn corrected him.
Defense's request for the disclosure of the identities of...
Defense counsel conferred with government prosecutors to request the identities of Victims 1-3. The government did not agree to the request, stating it would disclose the identities later through Rule 16 discovery or Jencks Act material production.
Legal and factual challenges to the prosecution
Defense counsel sent 'voluminous letters' to the USAO attacking legal theories and undermining victim credibility.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity