LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Professional employment |
6
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00009066.jpg
This document is a signature page from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated February 24, 2022. It lists the legal counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, including attorneys from three law firms: HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. in Denver, and COHEN & GRESSER LLP and the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim in New York. The document is electronically signed by attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca.
DOJ-OGR-00009002.jpg
This document is the cover page of a legal filing, specifically 'Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial', submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 24, 2022. It identifies the case as United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell and lists the defendant's legal counsel from three different law firms. The case number is 1:20-cr-00330-PAE and 20 Cr. 330 (AJN).
DOJ-OGR-00009001.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 5 of 5) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated January 13, 2022, and filed on February 24, 2022. It lists the legal counsel representing Ghislaine Maxwell, including Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, Christian R. Everdell, and Bobbi C. Sternheim, and is addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The document also indicates that a copy was sent via email to the counsel of record.
DOJ-OGR-00008975.jpg
This document is a letter dated February 21, 2022, from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim explains that attached documents concerning a Motion for a New Trial contain proposed redactions to protect the integrity of an inquiry into 'Juror 50's conduct' and to protect the privacy of other jurors involved in the voir dire process.
DOJ-OGR-00008962.jpg
This is a legal letter dated February 16, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter accompanies documents filed under seal that contain proposed redactions related to Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The redactions are intended to protect the integrity of a fact-finding inquiry into the conduct of 'Juror 50' during the jury selection process.
DOJ-OGR-00008960.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 36 of 37) of a legal filing from February 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense team, including attorneys Everdell, Pagliuca, Menninger, and Sternheim, is requesting the court to vacate Maxwell's conviction, dismiss the S2 Indictment, and enter a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 based on insufficient government proof.
DOJ-OGR-00008925.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 11, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is an omnibus memorandum submitted by Maxwell's legal team in support of her post-trial motions. The document lists the names and contact information for her attorneys from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00019773.jpg
This document is a criminal docket sheet for the case of USA v. Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on June 29, 2020. It identifies Ghislaine Maxwell as the defendant and lists her extensive legal team, including five attorneys from various law firms in New York and Denver. The case was assigned to Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019747.jpg
This document is a criminal docket sheet from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 29, 2020. The document identifies Ghislaine Maxwell as the defendant, Judge Alison J. Nathan as the presiding judge, and lists the five attorneys representing Maxwell. It also provides the contact information and law firm affiliations for each attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00019738.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Appearance' filed on January 25, 2021, in the case USA v. Maxwell (Docket 21-58). Attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim formally enters the case as additional counsel for the appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell, noting that she is serving as co-counsel alongside Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser, LLP.
DOJ-OGR-00019718.jpg
This document is page 3 of a U.S. District Court criminal docket sheet for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Maxwell), filed on June 29, 2020, and assigned to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It details the defense team representing Ghislaine Maxwell (also listed as Sealed Defendant 1), specifically listing five attorneys from three different law firms (Cohen & Gresser, Haddon Morgan and Foreman, and Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim) along with their contact information. The document carries a Bates stamp of DOJ-OGR-00019718.
DOJ-OGR-00019695.jpg
This document is a criminal docket sheet from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the case USA v. Maxwell, filed on June 29, 2020. It identifies Ghislaine Maxwell as the defendant and lists her legal representation, including five attorneys from various law firms. The case is assigned to Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00010726.jpg
This is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated June 25, 2022, concerning her client, Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim reports that the MDC has unjustifiably placed Maxwell on suicide watch, depriving her of legal materials and sleep, which prevents her from preparing for her upcoming sentencing. Sternheim asserts that both she and a psychologist have confirmed Maxwell is not suicidal and states her intent to formally request a postponement if the conditions are not changed.
DOJ-OGR-00010725.jpg
This legal letter, dated June 25, 2022, is from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim opposes a motion filed on behalf of Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein, who seek to provide oral victim impact statements at Maxwell's sentencing. The letter argues that the motion should be denied because neither Ransome nor Stein qualify as statutory crime victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
DOJ-OGR-00010600.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 9 of 68) of a legal filing from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim. The document was filed on June 24, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It is signed by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim and indicates that attachments were included and copies were sent to the Counsel of Record.
DOJ-OGR-00010599.jpg
This is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 672) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 24, 2022. The defense argues that the upcoming sentencing proceeding should not be an 'open-mike forum' and contends that individuals who do not strictly qualify as 'crime victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should be barred from giving oral testimony or having their statements read. The filing asserts that allowing non-statutory victims to speak would trample Maxwell's rights and suggests some individuals may be motivated by financial reward or media attention.
DOJ-OGR-00010596.jpg
This document is page 5 of a defense filing (dated June 24, 2022) related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the definition of 'victim' under the CVRA is narrower than sentencing guidelines and asserts that Maxwell's due process rights must be protected against new allegations in victim impact statements from accusers Annie Farmer and 'Kate' that were not cross-examined at trial. The document also attempts to impeach the credibility of Virginia Giuffre, noting she did not testify and alleging in a footnote that she failed to disclose prior abuse by a man named Ron Eppinger.
DOJ-OGR-00010594.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by the defense team (Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that specific individuals—Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant—do not qualify as 'victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) relative to the counts of conviction. The defense contends that because the federal charges specifically required the involvement of minors, and these women were either not minors or their interactions fell outside the indictment timeline, they are not statutory victims entitled to CVRA rights in this specific legal context.
DOJ-OGR-00010593.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, discusses the victim impact statements of seven women in a case involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. It argues their standing as statutory victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), noting that only Annie Farmer and Virginia Giuffre were minors during the relevant period of the charged offenses. The document contends that allegations of abuse alone are insufficient and must be directly linked to the federal offense conduct, which requires the victim to have been a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00010592.jpg
This document is a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, filed on June 24, 2022. In the letter, Maxwell formally objects to Sarah Ransome, Maria Farmer, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant being legally characterized as 'victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) for the purpose of sentencing. The defense argues these individuals do not meet the statutory requirements, specifically regarding their age at the time of alleged abuse, the timing relative to the indictment, and proximate harm resulting from the specific federal offenses of conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00010516.jpg
This document is a letter dated August 24, 2021, from Dr. Alexander S. Bardey of Fifth Avenue Forensics to Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys, Laura Menninger and Bobbi Sternheim. Dr. Bardey outlines the process of an ongoing forensic psychiatric evaluation of Ms. Maxwell, conducted to assess her mental state and flight risk in relation to a pending bail application. The evaluation included 14 meetings with Maxwell, a review of her history and legal documents, and a collateral interview with her counsel and acquaintance, Leah Saffian.
DOJ-OGR-00010447.jpg
This document is the title page of the Sentencing Memorandum filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell on June 15, 2022, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It lists the legal counsel representing Maxwell, including attorneys from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, Cohen & Gresser LLP, and Haddon, Morgan & Foreman P.C. The document bears a Department of Justice bates stamp number DOJ-OGR-00010447.
DOJ-OGR-00010444.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, is the conclusion of a court filing, likely a sentencing memorandum. It presents a calculation for a 'Total Offense Level' of 24 and argues that the court should apply the 2003 Sentencing Guidelines, which would result in a sentencing range of 51-63 months. The document is submitted by attorneys Christian R. Everdell of COHEN & GRESSER LLP and Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00010418.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. It lists Maxwell's defense team, including attorneys from Cohen & Gresser, the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, and Haddon, Morgan & Foreman. The filing supports Maxwell's objections to the Presentence Investigation Report.
DOJ-OGR-00010413.jpg
Defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim submitted a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan on May 10, 2022, requesting a two-day extension for Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing submission due to a pre-existing travel commitment. Although the government consented to the request, Judge Nathan explicitly denied the extension via an order stamped on the document dated May 11, 2022. The sentencing remained scheduled for June 28, 2022.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity