New York, NY
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00031386.jpg
This document is page 8 of 10 from a Cingular/AT&T Wireless invoice dated February 12, 2005, for the account of Holly Robson. It details voice usage for the number (561) 308-0282 between February 4 and February 7, 2005, showing a high volume of incoming and outgoing calls primarily to West Palm Beach and Lake Worth, Florida, with a few calls to New York. The document is stamped with 'Public Records Request No.: 17-295' and 'DOJ-OGR-00031386', indicating it was part of a Department of Justice release.
DOJ-OGR-00019827.jpg
This document is a "Notice of Defective Filing" issued on April 1, 2021, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of United States of America v. Maxwell. The notice informs the appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell, that her motion for bail was rejected because the submitted PDF document was not text-searchable, which violates local court rules. The document identifies the case docket numbers and the relevant court officials, including Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston and DC Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019775.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 21-58 filed on March 24, 2021, identifies the plaintiff as the USA. It lists five attorneys—Alex Rossmiller, Alison Gainfort Moe, Maurene Ryan Comey, Andrew Rohrbach, and Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz—from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York as legal representation for the plaintiff, providing their contact information and specific roles in the case.
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-00019744.jpg
This is a docketing notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated March 29, 2021, for the case of "United States of America v. Maxwell". The notice confirms that an appeal has been filed and assigned the docket number 21-770. It instructs the parties' counsel on the procedures for filing a Notice of Appearance and for maintaining correct contact information with the court.
DOJ-OGR-00019715.jpg
This is a legal notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated January 12, 2021, for the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket # 21-58). The document confirms that the "Record on Appeal - Electronic Index" has been officially filed with the court. The notice is issued under the authority of Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston and Clerk of Court Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe.
DOJ-OGR-00019692.jpg
This is a docketing notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated January 12, 2021, concerning the case of "United States of America v. Maxwell" (Docket # 21-58). The document officially notifies the parties that an appeal has been filed and outlines the procedural requirements for counsel, such as filing a Notice of Appearance and ensuring contact information is kept current with the court. It specifies that case documents are available via PACER for counseled cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019687.jpg
This is a legal notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020, regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 20-3061cr). The document formally announces that the case manager assigned to the matter has been changed and provides a phone number for any related inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00019683.jpg
This document is the first page of a Summary Order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020. It lists the judicial panel (Judges Cabranes, Pooler, and Raggi) presiding over the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061-cr). It identifies the legal counsel for both the United States (Appellee) and Maxwell (Defendant-Appellant).
DOJ-OGR-00019677.jpg
This document is the first page of a Summary Order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020, for the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It identifies the presiding judges (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi) and lists the legal counsel for both the appellee (United States), led by AUSA Lara Pomerantz, and the defendant-appellant (Ghislaine Maxwell), represented by Adam Mueller. The order was issued from the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in New York City.
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-00010507.jpg
This document is a letter of support dated April 24, 2022, from Catherine Vaughan-Edwards to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. Vaughan-Edwards describes her long-standing relationship with Maxwell, which began when Maxwell employed her in 1988 and evolved into a close, personal friendship. The letter aims to provide a positive character reference for Maxwell by highlighting their enduring bond, including Maxwell's role as godmother to one of Vaughan-Edwards' sons, to be considered by the court during sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00010490.jpg
This document is a character reference letter submitted to Judge Alison J. Nathan by James 'Jamie' Martin Hollomon, a psychotherapist and lawyer, on May 2, 2022, regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. Hollomon details a long-standing family friendship between the Hollomons and the Maxwells dating back to the 1950s through their fathers, Dr. Herbert Hollomon and Robert Maxwell. The author recounts staying with the Maxwell family in Oxford in 1966 when Ghislaine was five years old and returning for work experience in 1980.
DOJ-OGR-00010486.jpg
This is a joint letter dated May 3, 2022, from Ghislaine Maxwell's siblings, Anne Holve and Dr. Philip Maxwell, to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The authors express concern that the legal process may not fully account for Ghislaine's traumatic background, specifically citing a 1961 car accident that left their brother Michael in a coma for seven years, an event which occurred when Ghislaine was three days old and deeply impacted the family.
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-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-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-00010136.jpg
This document is a professional profile for Stephen Gillers, the Elihu Root Professor of Law at New York University, dated January 2012. It outlines his professional contact information, areas of teaching, and a list of his major publications on legal ethics and professional responsibility. The document also notes his collaborations with co-authors Norman Dorsen, Roy Simon, and Andrew Perlman on several key legal texts.
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-00009758.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It certifies that on January 19, 2022, Nicole Simmons electronically filed 'Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion for a New Trial' and served it to the government's counsel: Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Andrew Rohrbach, and Lara Pomerantz of the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York.
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-00009617.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 2, 2022, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Pagliuca, on behalf of his client Ghislaine Maxwell, requests an adjournment of a hearing on a Motion for New Trial, originally scheduled for March 8. The reason for the request is the unavailability of Maxwell's legal counsel, including Pagliuca, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Sternheim, due to their mandatory participation in other lengthy trials in Colorado and New York.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity