| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
102
Very Strong
|
211 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
29
Very Strong
|
34 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Business associate |
19
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
70 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Co counsel |
7
|
7 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Business associate |
6
|
6 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
|
Professional employment |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
ANDREW ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
John M. Leventhal
|
Professional succession |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MARK S. COHEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeff Pagliuca
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
government counsel
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Curcio client
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Counsel of record
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Pagliuca
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Pretrial conference | A pretrial conference was held where counsel for the government and defendant made their appearan... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Pretrial conference | A final pretrial conference was held to discuss outstanding issues and the plan for jury selection. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Detention | Ms. Maxwell is being held at the MDC under problematic conditions, including over-management and ... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An ongoing legal case involving Ms. Maxwell, where her conditions of confinement are a point of c... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The ongoing criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States Courthouse, 4... | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Sentencing Hearing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-07-15 | Legal document service | Bobbi C. Sternheim certified the service of a legal motion with an exhibit to multiple parties in... | N/A | View |
| 2022-07-15 | Legal filing | Bobbi C. Sternheim executed a declaration requesting to be relieved as counsel for Ghislaine Maxw... | N/A | View |
| 2022-07-15 | Legal filing | Attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim filed a Motion Information Statement to be relieved as continued coun... | UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE... | View |
| 2022-07-15 | Legal filing | Attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim filed a declaration in support of a motion to be relieved from repres... | UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE... | View |
| 2022-07-15 | N/A | Court Order issued granting Bobbi C. Sternheim's motion to be relieved as counsel for Ghislaine M... | Thurgood Marshall United St... | View |
| 2022-07-07 | Legal filing | Bobbi C. Sternheim filed a Notice of Appeal for Ghislaine Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2022-07-07 | Legal filing payment | Payment of a $505.00 fee for a 'Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee' for case 20CR330-1 AJN. | U.S. District Court, New Yo... | View |
| 2022-07-07 | Legal filing | Payment of a $505.00 fee for a 'Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee' in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | U.S. District Court, New Yo... | View |
| 2022-07-07 | Legal filing | A Notice of Appeal was filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-07-07 | N/A | Payment of Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee | U.S. District Court, Manhattan | View |
| 2022-07-07 | N/A | Notice of Appeal Filed | SDNY | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Sentencing | Sentencing hearing for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Legal proceeding | A sentencing proceeding for Ghislaine Maxwell is scheduled for Tuesday, which may need to be post... | United States District Court | View |
| 2022-06-25 | Meeting | Bobbi C. Sternheim met with her client, Ghislaine Maxwell, at the detention facility. | MDC | View |
| 2022-06-24 | N/A | Filing of Document 672 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Court Record | View |
| 2022-06-24 | N/A | Filing of Document 672 (Submission Under Seal) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-24 | Legal filing | Document 672 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-06-21 | N/A | Filing of legal document regarding sentencing procedures. | Court Docket | View |
| 2022-06-15 | Legal filing | Document 662 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
This document is an email chain from March 9, 2021, regarding the legal case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell (20 Cr. 330). Laura Menninger of Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. writes to Judge Nathan to submit a letter detailing Ms. Maxwell's objections to redactions proposed by the government in their Omnibus Response. The email includes several attachments related to these redactions and exhibits.
This document is a legal memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on January 25, 2021, seeking to suppress evidence obtained via subpoena from the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner. The defense argues that the government made false representations to Judge McMahon to bypass a civil protective order and obtain confidential deposition transcripts, alleging collusion between the civil plaintiff's lawyers (Boies Schiller) and federal prosecutors. The document details the history of the civil defamation case, specific deposition questions regarding sexual acts and Epstein, and the procedural history of the protective order modification.
This document is an email thread from October 2021 regarding the case U.S. v. Maxwell. Defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim sends a courtesy copy of an ECF filing (specifically a letter regarding legal mail) to prosecutors at the US Attorney's Office (USANYS) and her co-counsel (Everdell, Menninger, Pagliuca). The email was then forwarded internally within the USANYS office.
This document is an email thread from October 2021 involving Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, and government representatives (including Christian Everdell). Sternheim complains that legal materials (a hard drive and books) sent by the government via FedEx were delivered to the MDC on October 12, 2021, but had not been given to Maxwell as of October 14. The document includes screenshots of FedEx tracking information (Tracking #8166 1429 9130 and #8166 1429 9141) confirming delivery to Brooklyn, NY.
This document is an email signature block or letterhead footer for Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. It includes contact details (with phone numbers redacted), a Covid-19 notice regarding remote work, and a standard legal confidentiality disclaimer. The document bears the Bates stamp EFTA00029237.
This legal filing is a Reply Memorandum by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing for the suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges based on government misconduct. The defense asserts that prosecutors misled Chief Judge McMahon about the extent of their prior coordination with civil attorneys (Boies Schiller Flexner) to obtain a grand jury subpoena, thereby circumventing a civil protective order. The document details a specific meeting on February 29, 2016, where civil attorneys 'pitched' the prosecution of Maxwell and provided documents, including flight records (though the specific flight data is not listed in this text), which the prosecution later failed to disclose to the judge.
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting a motion to dismiss counts 1-4 of the superseding indictment. The defense argues that the indictment lacks specificity regarding names, dates, and details of the allegations, preventing Maxwell from preparing an adequate defense. The filing criticizes the government for using vague categories like 'Minor Victims' and 'multiple minor girls' without clarification and cites legal precedents to argue that the lack of specificity violates due process.
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed on March 15, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in the Southern District of New York. The defense argues that Counts 1 and 3 of the Superseding Indictment are multiplicitous (charging the same crime twice based on identical facts) and requests the Court order the government to elect one count to prosecute and dismiss the other prior to trial to avoid jury prejudice. The filing contends that the government has failed to prove the existence of two distinct conspiracies.
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, requesting the suppression of evidence obtained from a government subpoena to Boies Schiller and dismissal of counts five and six. It includes a Table of Contents, Table of Authorities citing various legal cases and rules, and a Table of Exhibits detailing communications and notes related to the case from 2016 to 2021, many involving AUSAs and individuals like Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley. The memorandum argues that the government misled the court and that the evidence should be suppressed due to due process violations.
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting a motion to dismiss counts one through four of her indictment as time-barred. The defense argues that the 2003 Amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which extended the statute of limitations, cannot be applied retroactively because Congress explicitly rejected a retroactivity provision. Additionally, the defense contends that the Mann Act offenses charged (enticement to travel and transportation of a minor) do not 'necessarily entail' the sexual abuse of a child, and thus the extended statute of limitations under § 3283 does not apply.
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting her motion to dismiss the indictment based on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) Jeffrey Epstein signed in Florida. Maxwell argues that the NPA's clause immunizing 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein' explicitly covers her and bars the current prosecution in the Southern District of New York. The defense contends that the government's attempt to limit the NPA geographically (to Florida) or to specific crimes is contradicted by the plain text of the agreement and legal precedent regarding plea agreements.
This document is an internal email chain within the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) dated June 2, 2021. It forwards an automated Notice of Docket Activity from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals indicating that Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail was denied. A USANYS staff member comments 'Awesome work!' regarding the court's decision.
This document is an email from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) to Judge Nathan's chambers regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Dated May 22, 2021, the email submits the Government's opposition to the defense's supplemental pretrial motions. The sender notes they are emailing the document because the electronic filing system prevents them from filing an opposition brief before the original defense motion appears on the public docket.
This document is a chain of emails between the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) and defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell (Laura Menninger) from March 2021. The correspondence concerns the scheduling of a review of 'highly confidential images' and physical evidence at 500 Pearl Street, as well as the production of indices listing items seized by the FBI from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in New York and the Virgin Islands in 2019. The prosecutor clarifies which items are indexed in spreadsheets versus search warrant returns and coordinates a phone call to discuss these matters.
An email chain from October 2021 involving Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, demanding immediate confirmation of the status of legal mail at the MDC. Sternheim notes that USPO tracking shows mail available for pickup that the facility has not retrieved, and threatens court action if not resolved. The chain includes a signature block for Isabel Maxwell, acting as a paralegal for the Law Offices of Leah Saffian.
This document is an email chain from October 14-15, 2021, involving the U.S. Attorney's Office (USANYS) and defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell. Following a letter filed by defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim regarding legal mail at the MDC, Judge Nathan ordered the prosecution to respond by 5 PM on October 15. The emails depict the prosecution team scrambling to draft a response, coordinating with the BOP and a contact named Sophia at the MDC, and expressing frustration regarding the tight deadlines imposed by Judge Nathan.
This document is a Notice of Docket Activity from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, dated April 15, 2021. It notifies recipients of a filing in the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Case No. 21-58). The filing is a Certificate of Service related to a motion by an unnamed appellate counsel to withdraw/be relieved from representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
This document is an email chain from April 2021 between defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim and redacted government officials regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement. Sternheim requests that Maxwell be allowed legal materials while waiting in the cell block, noting she was held idle for over three hours. The government responds that they do not object but that the US Marshals require a court order.
This document contains a series of email exchanges between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (led by Laura Menninger) and the US Attorney's Office regarding the logistics of reviewing discovery evidence in March and April 2021. The correspondence details disputes over the location of the review (FBI Bronx Warehouse vs. 500 Pearl Street courthouse), specifically concerning 'bulky' items such as massage tables, plaster busts, and framed art which the government refused to transport. Significant discussion focuses on the protocols for reviewing 'Highly Confidential' materials, including approximately 2,100 nude or obscene electronic images seized from Jeffrey Epstein's devices, which required specific viewing conditions on non-networked laptops due to their nature.
This document is an email notification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit regarding case 21-58, United States of America v. Maxwell. Dated January 26, 2021, it notifies recipients that an attorney (name redacted) has been added for the Appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The notice was mailed to Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian Romeyn Everdell and Ms. Bobbi C. Sternheim, among others.
This document contains the signature block and legal disclaimer for Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. It includes contact details (partially redacted), a notice regarding office closure due to Covid-19, and standard confidentiality warnings. Bobbi Sternheim is known for representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
This document is an email from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim dated November 24, 2020, regarding the case 'U.S. v. Maxwell'. The email circulates a courtesy copy of an ECF filing titled 'Maxwell_Reply_to_90-day_conditions_ltr.pdf' to a group of attorneys including Mark S. Cohen, Christian Everdell, Laura Menninger, and Jeff Pagliuca.
This document represents an email thread between defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim and an official at MDC Brooklyn regarding the confinement status of Ghislaine Maxwell on November 19, 2020. The official informs Sternheim that Maxwell was placed in quarantine (not the SHU) for 14 days after close contact with a staff member who tested positive for COVID-19, resulting in the suspension of in-person legal visits.
This document is an email chain from November 2020 involving Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim. Sternheim writes to unidentified recipients (likely prison officials) seeking confirmation and explanation regarding Maxwell receiving a Covid-19 nasal swab and being moved to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for a 14-day quarantine, expressing concern over scheduled legal calls and visits.
This document is an email chain from October 2021 detailing complaints by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, regarding conditions at the MDC. Sternheim alleges 'foul play' or a 'cover-up' regarding legal mail that went missing and reappeared with USPS markings despite being placed in an internal mailbox. Additional complaints include inadequate space and COVID safety during legal visits, denial of requests to see the Warden, and issues with food (receiving meat while on a vegetarian diet) and electricity.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-07 | Paid | Bobbi C. Sternheim | U.S. District Cou... | $505.00 | Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee for Case 20CR330... | View |
Acknowledges missing previous email. Wishes recipient a good weekend.
Informing that she is on VTC with Maxwell and Maxwell has not received the legal mail despite it being delivered. Requests assistance.
Notification of court order directing recipient to give Ms. Maxwell access to her laptop on weekends and holidays.
Follow up on previous email; stating documents were express mailed and must be received by Friday for weekend review.
Follow up on lack of response regarding express mailed documents. Requests immediate delivery to Maxwell for weekend review.
Outlining plan to mail documents for review over the holiday weekend (MLK Day). Requests permission to send to Legal Dept and requests laptop access for Maxwell to review discovery.
Initial request regarding mailing documents for review over MLK weekend and request for laptop access because MDC computers cannot open discovery documents.
Response explaining that VTC delays were due to institutional emergencies and that searches are consistent with BOP policy.
Complaint regarding Maxwell arriving late to VTCs, being forced to clean a toilet without gloves, and intrusive searches.
Acknowledgment of receipt of concerns and assurance they will be looked into.
Complaint regarding disciplinary charge, inconsistent staff orders, lack of proper food (rotting banana, bologna), and request for team removal.
Report of physical mistreatment where an officer squeezed Maxwell's breast during a search and another threatened her with assault charges.
Complaint regarding physical mistreatment and verbal threats against Ghislaine Maxwell by MDC staff.
Detailed complaint regarding Maxwell's prison conditions, including searches, surveillance, temperature, and isolation.
Request for laptop access for discovery review and complaints regarding prison conditions including cold cell, surveillance, and lack of mail.
Metadata only visible. Subject references Ghislaine Maxwell and her BOP register number.
Stating Maxwell has three blankets, was provided a holiday meal, and cell temperature was 76.5 degrees on 12/26/20.
Response to complaint regarding Maxwell's conditions. States she has three blankets, received a holiday meal, and the temperature was 76.5 degrees.
Acknowlegement of receipt of information regarding Maxwell's conditions.
Complaint that Maxwell's blanket was removed, she was denied a holiday meal, and her cell is freezing (uninsulated). Requesting emergency legal call.
Complaint alleging Maxwell's blanket was removed, she was denied a complete holiday meal, is cold and hungry, and requesting an emergency legal call.
Response to MDC Report to Court re: conditions.
Complaint regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's solitary confinement and the BOP's handling of her detention in response to Epstein's suicide.
The document indicates that a copy of this letter was sent via email to four other attorneys.
A letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim requesting the immediate elimination of harsh and restrictive detention conditions for Ms. Maxwell, or an explanation for why they are necessary.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity