S.D.N.Y.
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein's lawyers
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00019500.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 28) dated July 27, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues for a specific provision in a protective order regarding victim/witness identities. Maxwell's defense contends that they should be permitted to reference alleged victims who have already voluntarily disclosed their identities in public records or media, arguing that the government's proposed restrictions are overly broad and hinder the defense's ability to investigate and advocate.
DOJ-OGR-00019468.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket concerning the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically detailing a Memorandum Opinion & Order dated July 30, 2020. The order resolves disputes regarding a protective order, siding with the Government to restrict Ms. Maxwell from publicly referencing alleged victims not identified in the litigation and rejecting her request to restrict potential witnesses' use of discovery materials. The court emphasizes the need to balance privacy interests of victims and witnesses against the defendant's rights and public interest.
DOJ-OGR-00019466.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from Case 20-3061, dated September 18, 2020, detailing proceedings related to defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in July 2020. Key events include attorney appearances, motions regarding Maxwell's detention, her arraignment where she pleaded not guilty, and Judge Alison J. Nathan's orders denying bail, remanding Maxwell, and setting a trial date for July 12, 2021. The docket also establishes deadlines for discovery and motions in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019464.jpg
This document is a court docket excerpt from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing an order for an arraignment and bail hearing scheduled for July 14, 2020. The order specifies that the proceeding will be conducted remotely via video/teleconference due to COVID-19, outlines strict courthouse entry protocols, and addresses victim notification rights and Speedy Trial Act exclusions.
DOJ-OGR-00019415.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in an appeal related to the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The author argues that appealing Judge Preska's decision to unseal deposition material will be moot after a final judgment. The stated purpose of the appeal is to share redacted information, which Ms. Maxwell learned, with Judge Preska.
DOJ-OGR-00019409.jpg
This legal document from September 24, 2020, discusses judicial proceedings involving Ms. Maxwell. It notes that Judge Preska took over a case from the late Judge Sweet and describes how arguments by Ms. Maxwell to keep materials sealed were dismissed. The document also mentions a specific instance where Ms. Maxwell's motion to stay discovery in a related case, 'Farmer v. Indyke', was opposed by attorneys representing both Ms. Giuffre and plaintiff Annie Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00019289.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell on September 10, 2020, requesting the consolidation of two appeals. The first is from her criminal case (United States v. Maxwell) and the second is from a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell). Maxwell argues the cases are intertwined because new information from the criminal case is relevant to the court's decision to unseal deposition material in the civil case.
DOJ-OGR-00019253.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated September 9, 2020. It includes an order from Judge Alison J. Nathan detailing procedures for public and media access to hearings via phone and video feed, given COVID-19 restrictions. The docket entries list filings from mid-July 2020, including attorney appearances for Maxwell, motions regarding her detention, and a minute entry for her arraignment on July 14, 2020, where she pleaded not guilty, was denied bail, and remanded into custody.
DOJ-OGR-00019228.jpg
This document is page 6 of 7 from a court filing dated July 2, 2020 (Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJN). The text outlines the court's decision to implement a 'partial closure' of the courtroom, conducting the hearing via video and telephone conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court cites 'United States v. Alimehmeti' as precedent for limiting physical access while maintaining public access via other means (telephone).
DOJ-OGR-00019198.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ) dated July 2, 2020. It discusses the court's decision to implement a partial closure of the courtroom, conducting the hearing via video and telephone conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court argues this is necessary for public health and cites United States v. Alimehmeti as a precedent for partial closures.
DOJ-OGR-00016749.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. The content captures a procedural discussion where the Judge ('The Court') outlines the legal requirements for introducing extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a witness, citing United States v. Gulani. Ms. Menninger briefly responds to a question about a pseudonym.
DOJ-OGR-00010555.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 22, 2022, is a portion of a court filing arguing that the judge (the Court), not the jury, is responsible for determining which version of the Sentencing Guidelines to apply in a case. The filing cites legal precedent from the Second Circuit and the text of the Guidelines themselves to refute the defendant's claim that this factual determination must be made by a jury, particularly regarding the date of an offense for ex post facto considerations.
DOJ-OGR-00009165.jpg
This document is page 46 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The Government argues that 'Juror 50' should be allowed to review his jury questionnaire before any potential hearing to consult with counsel regarding his Fifth Amendment rights. The text notes that Juror 50 does not recall answering questions about sexual assault and discusses procedural arguments regarding subpoenas and the scope of the inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009153.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should personally conduct a narrow questioning of Juror 50 to investigate potential bias. The Government contends this approach is necessary to prevent juror harassment and protect the integrity of jury deliberations, citing numerous legal precedents where courts have similarly controlled such inquiries. The Government also argues against the defendant's request for "pre-hearing discovery" and calling other jurors as witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00009147.jpg
This legal document argues against the automatic presumption of juror bias when a juror has engaged in conduct similar to the defendant's. It cites multiple court cases from various circuits (First, Second, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth) to support the position that juror removal is reserved for "extreme situations" and that a finding of bias often depends on a combination of factors, not just a similarity of experience. The document distinguishes cases cited by the defendant, arguing they are either inapposite or involve unique, egregious facts not present in the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00008936.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, details the defense's request for an additional jury instruction concerning Mann Act counts, arguing against conviction based solely on New Mexico conduct. The Court declined this instruction, and the jury subsequently convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four, with charges also in Counts One and Three. The document also cites applicable law regarding constructive amendments, defining them and explaining their impact on a defendant's Grand Jury Clause rights.
DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg
This is page 3 of a court order filed on Feb 11, 2022, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court rules against the Defendant's request to completely seal motion papers related to an inquiry into 'Juror 50,' stating that wholesale sealing is not narrowly tailored to serve the interest of justice. The Judge notes that much of the information is already public and that the Court, as the fact-finder for the inquiry, is already privy to the information regardless of sealing.
DOJ-OGR-00019878.jpg
This document is page 'iii' (Table of Authorities) from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists legal precedents cited within the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and 'United States v. Salerno' (1987), along with a citation to 18 U.S.C. § 3142 regarding bail/detention. The page bears a Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00019878.
DOJ-OGR-00019877.jpg
This document is the 'Table of Authorities' (page ii) from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), originally filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited within the main brief, including cases such as Hung v. United States, United States v. Boustani, and United States v. Dreier. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019877).
DOJ-OGR-00019870.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for the detention of the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines her flight risk due to her 'extensive international ties,' noting she holds citizenship and passports for the US, UK, and France. It cites CBP records showing frequent travel, including 15 international flights in the prior three years to locations like Japan and Qatar.
DOJ-OGR-00019844.jpg
This legal document argues for the release of Ms. Maxwell from the Metropolitan Correction Center (MDC), asserting that her continued detention is unconstitutional. The filing claims that unsafe conditions at the facility, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, prevent her from adequately consulting with her lawyers and preparing her defense. A footnote describes the attorney visiting rooms at MDC as a 'death trap' due to poor air filtration, highlighting the risks faced by both inmates and legal counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00019804.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from late July 2020 detailing filings in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It records a dispute regarding a protective order, where the defense sought to allow Maxwell to publicly name victims who had already spoken publicly about her or Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Alison Nathan ruled in favor of the Government, adopting their proposed protective order to restrict Maxwell from disseminating the identities of alleged victims or witnesses to protect their privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00019778.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from July 8-13, 2020. Key entries include a superseding indictment, notices of appearance for Maxwell's attorneys, and memoranda regarding her detention. A significant order from Judge Alison J. Nathan schedules Maxwell's remote arraignment and bail hearing for July 14, 2020, and outlines procedures for public and media access during the COVID-19 pandemic.
DOJ-OGR-00019762.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-58), covering entries from December 18 to December 28, 2020. It details the legal proceedings surrounding Maxwell's renewed motion for bail, including the Government's opposition, Maxwell's reply, and Judge Alison J. Nathan's orders approving specific redactions to protect third-party privacy. The page concludes with an entry on December 28, 2020, where the Court denies the Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail.
DOJ-OGR-00019725.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet and memorandum opinion from July 2020 regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the legal dispute over a protective order, specifically regarding Maxwell's ability to publicly name alleged victims and witnesses. Judge Alison J. Nathan ruled in favor of the Government, adopting their proposed protective order to restrict Maxwell from referencing alleged victims, citing the need to protect their privacy and safety despite previous public statements.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity