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-00010321.jpg
Attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim writes to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case on April 1, 2022. The letter informs the court of a new Paramount Plus interview with 'Juror 50' that promises a 'bombshell revelation,' which may impact Maxwell's pending motion for a new trial. Sternheim requests a stay of any ruling until the defense and court can review the content of this interview.
DOJ-OGR-00010317.jpg
This legal document analyzes the conduct of Juror 50 during and after the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It highlights Juror 50's public revelation of his jury service on social media and his multiple false statements to the Court regarding his impartiality and willingness to follow instructions. The document argues that these actions demonstrate Juror 50's bias and inability to serve as an unbiased juror, providing grounds for a cause challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00010316.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 intentionally provided false answers during jury selection. It highlights contradictions in his testimony regarding whether his abuser (his stepbrother) was a family member and contrasts his claim of not speaking about the abuse with his decisions to speak to international media and post on social media. The document portrays the juror's explanations as unbelievable and rehearsed, suggesting a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00010315.jpg
This is page 9 of a legal filing by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, dated March 15, 2022, regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The document argues that 'Juror 50' was biased and answered voir dire questions (specifically Question 25 and 49) incorrectly regarding his history of sexual abuse because he does not identify as a 'victim' due to his healing process. The defense argues this psychological coping mechanism prevented accurate answers and demonstrates bias, reiterating objections to the Court's limitation on questioning the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010314.jpg
This legal document, from the law offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that 'Juror 50' demonstrated bias by providing false answers on a juror questionnaire. The filing disputes the juror's explanations for his answers—such as being rushed or no longer identifying as a victim of past abuse—as not credible, citing his own testimony and the content of the questionnaire itself as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00010313.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell's defense by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that Juror 50 was biased and should have been struck from the jury. The filing asserts that the juror's failure to disclose his history of sexual abuse, coupled with his incredible explanations for false statements on a questionnaire, demonstrates a bias that his own assurances of impartiality cannot overcome. The document cites legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the claim that juror bias must be determined from circumstances, not the juror's self-serving statements.
DOJ-OGR-00010311.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 was incapable of being impartial due to his own past trauma of childhood sexual abuse, which was highly similar to that of the victims in the case. The filing cites multiple legal precedents where jurors were dismissed or new trials were granted for failing to disclose such biasing personal experiences. The document further contends that Juror 50's decision to speak to the international press after the trial to 'tell his story' demonstrates his deep identification with the victims and confirms his bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010310.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 649) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, filed on March 15, 2022, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text argues that 'Juror 50' demonstrated bias by lying on a questionnaire about his own history of sexual abuse, which the defense argues closely paralleled the abuse described by victims at the trial. The filing highlights that the juror was abused by a familiar person (his stepbrother), mirroring the allegations against Epstein and Maxwell, and argues he would have been struck for cause had he been honest.
DOJ-OGR-00010309.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 15, 2022, analyzes whether a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave false answers during jury selection (voir dire). Juror 50 answered "No" to a question about whether any family member had been accused of sexual abuse, but later admitted his stepbrother had been, and that his mother had reported it to the police. The court is now considering if this false statement satisfies the legal standard (the McDonough test) and would have provided Ms. Maxwell, a party in the case, with a valid reason to have the juror removed for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00010307.jpg
This is a letter dated March 15, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues for a new trial for Maxwell, claiming that a juror, identified as 'Juror 50', provided false answers on his juror questionnaire by failing to disclose his own history of sexual abuse. The letter asserts that the juror's testimony at a subsequent hearing was not credible and that his presence on the jury was improper, warranting a retrial.
DOJ-OGR-00010289.jpg
This page contains the conclusion and signature block of a legal motion filed on March 11, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The document requests that the court vacate Maxwell's conviction and enter a judgment of acquittal. It lists the contact information for her legal defense team, including Christian R. Everdell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, and Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00010267.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing titled 'Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Post-Trial Motions,' filed on March 11, 2022, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It lists the defense attorneys representing Maxwell: Christian R. Everdell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, and Bobbi C. Sternheim, along with their respective law firms and contact information. The document bears a Department of Justice bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00010267.
DOJ-OGR-00009900.jpg
This is the signature page (page 31 of 32) of a legal filing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 9, 2022, and filed on March 11, 2022. The text concludes a motion requesting a new trial or an evidentiary hearing to examine jurors. It lists the defense counsel team (Pagliuca, Menninger, Everdell, and Sternheim) representing Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00009870.jpg
This document is the cover page of a legal motion filed on March 11, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is titled "Ghislaine Maxwell's Reply in Support of Her Motion for a New Trial" for the case United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document identifies Maxwell as the defendant and lists her legal counsel from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00009775.jpg
This document is a portion of a juror questionnaire for case 20-cr-000389-AEN, filed on March 24, 2022. The respondent, identified as Juror ID 50, attests that they do not personally know and have had no dealings with any of the listed defense attorneys or the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan. The juror's negative responses indicate no known conflicts of interest with the key legal figures in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009757.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 65 of 66) of a legal filing (Document 642) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It lists the defense counsel representing Ghislaine Maxwell, including Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, Christian Everdell, and Bobbi Sternheim, along with their respective law firms and contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00009693.jpg
This document is the cover page for 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 March 11, 2022. The case is identified as United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document lists the names and contact information for Maxwell's legal counsel from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00009677.jpg
This document is a portion of a juror questionnaire from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 9, 2022. Juror ID 50 attests that they do not know and have no past or present dealings with any of the listed defense attorneys (Christian Everdell, Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, Bobbi Sternheim) or the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan. The responses indicate no declared conflicts of interest between the potential juror and the key legal figures in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009623.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter filed on March 2, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense attorneys request that Maxwell's lawyers be present for an upcoming proceeding and ask for a continuance until May. The letter is signed by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and lists co-counsel Laura A. Menninger, Christian R. Everdell, and Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00009621.jpg
This document is a letter dated March 2, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, on behalf of her client Ghislaine Maxwell, to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Sternheim requests a proffer from the counsel for 'Juror 50' to explain why the juror is asserting their Fifth Amendment right, especially since the juror publicly claimed to have answered all questions honestly. In a handwritten note dated March 3, 2022, Judge Nathan denied the request, stating no grounds were offered for it.
DOJ-OGR-00009618.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 2, 2022, is a request from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The attorneys, led by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, ask the Court to postpone an important proceeding until a convenient date in May. The reason for the request is to ensure that Ms. Maxwell's lawyers can be present for the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009616.jpg
A legal letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, to Judge Alison Nathan regarding 'Juror 50.' The letter notes that Juror 50 intends to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, despite publicly claiming honesty, and that the government is seeking immunity for the juror. Maxwell's defense requests an explanation (proffer) for the Fifth Amendment assertion and the government's willingness to grant immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00009541.jpg
This document is a letter dated February 24, 2022, from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter proposes limited redactions to a court Opinion and Order in response to a prior court order. Appended to the letter is a handwritten order from Judge Nathan, dated February 25, 2022, approving the proposed redactions to ensure the integrity of a forthcoming hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009540.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated February 24, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter serves as a response to a court order issued the same day, proposing that the defense will make limited redactions to an attached Opinion and Order that was filed under a temporary seal.
DOJ-OGR-00004746.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court concerning her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim complains about the recurring problematic conditions, over-management, and hyper-surveillance Ms. Maxwell faces at the MDC, arguing it impedes trial preparation and violates attorney-client privilege. The letter supports its claims by quoting Judge McMahon from another case, who strongly condemned the "disgusting, inhuman" conditions at the MCC and MDC and blamed the incompetence of the Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity