S.D.N.Y.
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein's lawyers
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00001562.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 9, 2020, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The order establishes procedures for court proceedings amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting seating to approximately 60 people on a first-come, first-served basis and outlining how counsel and the press can make seating requests. The document strictly prohibits any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of the proceedings, warning that violations may result in fines, sanctions, or denial of entry to future hearings.
DOJ-OGR-00001525.jpg
This legal document is a court's conclusion, filed on July 6, 2020, justifying the partial closure of a court hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Citing the precedent of United States v. Alimehmeti, the court rules that the hearing will proceed via video and telephone conference to protect public health, while ensuring public access is maintained by telephone.
DOJ-OGR-00001493.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the detention of a defendant by highlighting her characteristics as a significant flight risk. The prosecution points to the defendant's extensive international ties, including being born in France, raised in the United Kingdom, and holding citizenship and passports for the US, UK, and France. Her frequent international travel, including at least fifteen flights in the last three years, and her financial means are presented as evidence supporting the argument that she could easily flee and live abroad.
DOJ-OGR-00001454.jpg
This legal document, page 14 of a court filing dated May 27, 2021, outlines the legal standards for reviewing a district court's detention order and for considering a defendant's temporary release. It cites U.S. statutes and several legal precedents, including United States v. Watkins and United States v. Scarborough, to establish that the court applies a 'deferential review' and that a defendant bears the burden of proving temporary release is necessary for their defense or for other compelling reasons.
DOJ-OGR-00001367.jpg
This is a Motion Information Statement filed on April 15, 2021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP is requesting to withdraw as counsel of record for Ghislaine Maxwell because she has retained new counsel, David Oscar Markus of Markus/Moss PLLC, for her appeal. The motion is unopposed by the United States, represented by AUSA Maurene Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00001173.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court's analysis distinguishing the current defendant's case from several cited legal precedents regarding pre-trial detention. The court contrasts cases where defendants were released (Khashoggi, Bodmer) with cases where they were detained (Boustani, Ho, Epstein), focusing on factors that justify detention such as flight risk, substantial financial resources, dual citizenship, and ties to foreign countries without extradition treaties like Brazil.
DOJ-OGR-00001171.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her financial means, foreign ties, and willingness to hide. The author dismisses proposed bail conditions like a $1 million bond from a security company and GPS monitoring as insufficient, citing several legal precedents (U.S. v. Banki, Zarger, and Benatar) where similar measures were deemed inadequate for high-risk defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
This legal document outlines the statutory framework for pretrial detention in cases involving minor victims, establishing a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community. It details the defendant's burden to produce evidence to counter this presumption and clarifies that the government retains the ultimate burden of proof. The document also specifies the conditions under which a detention hearing can be reopened, primarily requiring new, material information that was previously unknown to the moving party.
DOJ-OGR-00001000.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell based on the case number) dated June 15, 2020. It provides a string citation of legal precedents from the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) where judges denied pre-trial bail to defendants during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the defendants citing various health conditions like asthma and diabetes. The text argues that health risks alone have not been sufficient grounds for release in recent comparable cases.
DOJ-OGR-00000968.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Document 18, filed July 10, 2020) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense counsel argues for Maxwell's release on bail, citing the inability to effectively communicate with her due to MDC's COVID-19 protocols, which restrict in-person visits and delay phone calls. The text details a specific incident on July 6, 2020, where counsel struggled to connect with Maxwell to comply with a court order, and footnotes cite legal precedents where other defendants were released due to similar pandemic-related restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00000960.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page iii) from a legal filing (Document 18) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and several other cases regarding bail and detention, referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3142.
DOJ-OGR-00000952.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for the detention of a female defendant (identified by context as Ghislaine Maxwell). The prosecution argues she is a significant flight risk due to her wealth, multiple citizenships (US, UK, France), and possession of three passports. It notes she has taken at least 15 international flights in the last three years to locations including the UK, Japan, and Qatar.
DOJ-OGR-00000927.jpg
This document appears to be page 15 (internal numbering) of a legal brief filed on April 1, 2021, in Case 21-770 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). The text presents legal arguments against pre-trial detention, citing precedents such as *United States v. Stephens* and *United States v. Weigand* to argue that the COVID-19 pandemic creates obstacles to defense preparation that justify release. It specifically references a case where a 'wealthy defendant' deemed a flight risk was released due to the pandemic.
DOJ-OGR-00000886.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing legal filings and orders from late July 2020. It includes entries regarding motions for a protective order, responses from both the defense and prosecution, and a Memorandum Opinion & Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan resolving disputes over the protective order's language concerning victim identification and the use of discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00000883.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket containing orders and notices related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details COVID-19 protocols for courthouse entry, remote proceeding logistics, victim notification rights, and Speedy Trial Act exclusions. It also lists a memo endorsement scheduling briefing deadlines and notices of attorney appearances for Maxwell's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00000856.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from December 2020 detailing proceedings in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It records the filing of opposition and reply memoranda regarding Maxwell's renewed motion for bail, as well as Judge Alison J. Nathan's orders approving redactions to protect third-party privacy and ultimately denying the motion for release on bail on December 28, 2020. The text heavily cites legal precedents regarding judicial transparency versus privacy interests (Lugosch, Amodeo).
DOJ-OGR-00000848.jpg
This document is a docket sheet page from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings from July 27 to July 30, 2020. It details a dispute over a protective order, specifically regarding Maxwell's ability to publicly name alleged victims who have previously spoken publicly about her or Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an order siding with the Government, restricting Maxwell from publicly referencing alleged victims and witnesses to protect their privacy during the criminal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00000846.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from Case 21-770, detailing filings and orders related to defendant Ghislaine Maxwell between July 8 and July 13, 2020. Key entries include a superseding indictment against Maxwell, motions for attorneys to appear on her behalf, and a detailed court order by Judge Alison J. Nathan setting the procedures for a remote arraignment and bail hearing scheduled for July 14, 2020. The order also outlines public and media access to the proceedings via telephone and a limited-capacity video feed at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse due to COVID-19 restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00000845.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (S.D.N.Y.) dated July 2020, detailing proceedings shortly after Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest. It outlines strict COVID-19 protocols for the courthouse, addresses victim notification rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sets a briefing schedule regarding detention pending trial. The document also records the official notices of appearance for Maxwell's defense team: Mark Cohen, Christian Everdell, and Laura Menninger.
DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the pretrial detention of a defendant, Mr. Epstein. It establishes that rules of evidence are relaxed in bail hearings, giving courts wide discretion, and cites legal precedent that in cases involving sexual victimization of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, there is a presumption for remand. The document states that the burden is on Mr. Epstein to provide evidence that he is not a danger or flight risk, while the Government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion.
DOJ-OGR-00000751.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated July 29, 2025, concerning the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for disclosure based on intense public interest and the 'magnitude and abhorrence' of Epstein's crimes, while noting that victim identification will be redacted. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum and details the dates of the original grand jury proceedings in 2019, 2020, and 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00021059.jpg
This document is page 12 of 113 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (U.S. v. [Defendant]) cited in the main brief, along with their corresponding page numbers. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021059).
DOJ-OGR-00021058.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, dating from 1926 to 2022, which are cited within the main document. Each citation includes the case name, legal reporter information, and the page numbers where the case is referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00021024.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court ruling (likely denying a motion to dismiss) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal standard for 'pre-indictment delay' and 'lost evidence,' specifically refuting the Defendant's claims that lost government property records and flight manifests (delivered by pilot Larry Visoski to Epstein's NY office) prejudiced her defense. The court argues the Defendant failed to prove these records were unavailable through other means or that their absence was caused by the government's delay.
DOJ-OGR-00021022.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 657 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressing the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) claim that delay in prosecution caused prejudice to her defense. The text argues the defendant failed to prove substantial prejudice but outlines her specific claims regarding lost evidence, including flight records, financial documents, phone records, and property records. It specifically names deceased witnesses the defense claims were unavailable: architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity