district court
LocationRelationship Network
016-06.pdf
This document is a court order dated July 1, 2010, from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Peter R. Palermo grants the plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling of a settlement conference set for July 6, 2010, to ensure Jane Doe does not come into contact with Epstein, citing existing no-contact orders. The order stipulates specific arrival times for Epstein (8:30 AM), dismissal procedures, and explicitly forbids communication or harassment between the parties.
EFTA00029169.pdf
This document is a subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 24, 2021. It commands a redacted individual to appear in court on November 29, 2021, to testify in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell and to produce all records relating to their employment by Jeffrey Epstein.
EFTA00020355.pdf
This document contains a letter dated July 2, 2020, from Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss to Judge Katharine H. Parker requesting the unsealing of Indictment 20 Cr. 330 against Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes the subsequent court order signed by Judge Parker granting the unsealing. The final page lists the relevant U.S. Code violations including sex trafficking (18 U.S.C. 2422, 2423) and perjury (1623).
EFTA00018151.pdf
This document is an email thread dated July 8, 2019, between the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) and the U.S. Marshals Service regarding the logistics of Jeffrey Epstein's initial court appearance. The emails discuss the timing of the case unsealing (9:15 AM), the uncertainty of the assigned judge, Epstein's transport from the MCC, and the prosecution's confirmation that they will request detention rather than an agreed bail package.
EFTA00010243.pdf
This is a subpoena from the US District Court (SDNY) issued on October 5, 2021, to The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. It demands the production of employment records regarding a redacted individual for the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The appearance/production date is set for November 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001460.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770) argues that Judge Nathan acted within her discretion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement at the MDC. It asserts that Maxwell failed to provide evidence that MDC protocols interfered with her trial preparation. The document dismisses Maxwell's complaints about conditions—specifically regarding undrinkable water, inadequate food, audio recording of legal visits, and sewage overflows—as bare assertions without evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001445.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770, dated May 27, 2021) outlines the Government's argument for the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. It references three denied bail applications and details a specific hearing on July 14, 2020, where Judge Nathan ruled Maxwell a flight risk based on strong evidence and the nature of the offenses. The document highlights that the indictment is supported by three victim-witnesses, corroborated by flight records and diaries.
DOJ-OGR-00001347.jpg
This document is a letter dated December 4, 2020, from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (MDC Brooklyn) to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the confinement conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter addresses the judge's concerns about Maxwell's safety, detailing her housing assignment, daily access to common areas and legal materials, and her ability to use the commissary. It notes that staff use flashlights for overnight checks and that Maxwell has been instructed on how to use the Administrative Remedy Program for complaints.
DOJ-OGR-00001245.jpg
This legal document is a filing, likely by the government, arguing that the district court should deny the defendant's 'Third Bail Motion'. The primary argument is that the court lacks jurisdiction because the defendant has a simultaneous bail appeal pending in the Second Circuit. A secondary argument is that even if jurisdiction existed, the motion should be denied because the court has already twice found the defendant to be a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00000561.jpg
This document is page 51 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490 (USA v. Jeffrey Epstein), filed on July 24, 2019. A member of the defense counsel is addressing the Judge regarding bail conditions, stating the defendant is willing to accept any monetary conditions, home detention, and monitoring to guarantee his appearance. The speaker also addresses the issue of sealing financial information, conceding that if monetary bail conditions are set, the associated financial information becomes a judicial document to which the public is entitled.
DOJ-OGR-00018915.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on a girl named Melissa, who was 16 years old when she visited Jeffrey Epstein's house accompanied by a woman named Carolyn. The witness states that after being inside for an hour, Melissa and Carolyn emerged carrying money.
DOJ-OGR-00002356.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's depositions from April and July 2016. It outlines the terms of a Protective Order for confidential materials and describes a motion by Virginia Giuffre's lawyers (Boies Schiller) to compel Maxwell to answer questions, with assurances that her answers would remain confidential. A footnote alleges that Giuffre's side had previously leaked confidential information to the media and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00002356(3).jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN filed on February 4, 2021, discusses the terms of a Protective Order concerning confidential materials. It describes how Maxwell relied on this order to testify in her April and July 2016 depositions and a subsequent motion by Giuffre to compel her to answer further questions. The document includes assurances from the law firm Boies Schiller that any answers would remain confidential under the order.
DOJ-OGR-00002273.jpg
This document is a letter from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (MDC Brooklyn) to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated January 25, 2021. The letter requests the court vacate a previous order regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement, arguing that the facility provides her with significant access to discovery materials (13 hours/day via laptop) and legal counsel (3 hours/day), which the facility claims exceeds the time allotted to other inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00002273(1).jpg
A formal letter from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (MDC Brooklyn) to Judge Alison Nathan requesting the vacating of a court order regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The MDC argues that Maxwell already has significant access to discovery materials (via a dedicated laptop provided in Nov 2020) and extensive communication with her legal counsel, exceeding that of other inmates. The letter refutes defense claims that her confinement conditions are limiting her ability to prepare for trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019284.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 20-3061), explains the procedural constraints on Ms. Maxwell due to conflicting court orders. A criminal protective order from Judge Nathan prevents her from sharing critical information with Judge Preska in a related civil case. Consequently, Ms. Maxwell must file a redacted version of her Motion to Consolidate publicly, while the full, unredacted version can only be filed under seal in the criminal appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019252.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for Case 20-3061 involving Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from July 8 to July 9, 2020. It records procedural orders regarding remote proceedings, Speedy Trial Act exclusions, and victim notification rights, as well as the filing of attorney appearances, a pro hac vice motion, and a superseding indictment. The document also details the scheduling of an arraignment and bail hearing via teleconference.
DOJ-OGR-00009114.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Document 614) from February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that 'Juror 50' provided untrue answers during jury selection (voir dire) by denying past sexual abuse and claiming impartiality, facts which were later contradicted by the juror's own press statements. The text cites the 'McDonough test' to argue that these false answers prevented the defense from challenging the juror for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00019750.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from Case 21-58 concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from June 29, 2020, to July 7, 2020. It tracks the unsealing of the indictment, the assignment of the case to Judge Alison J. Nathan, the motion to detain the defendant, and the scheduling of the initial appearance and arraignment amidst COVID-19 restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00019732.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 21-58) covering entries from December 10 to December 18, 2020, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes orders by Judge Alison J. Nathan approving redactions for a renewed bail application to protect the privacy interests of third parties, notices of transcript filings, and the entry of appearance by attorney Andrew Rohrbach for the government. The document also lists the filing of a Memorandum of Law in support of bail accompanied by numerous exhibits (A through X).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012039.jpg
This document, marked with a House Oversight footer, appears to be a legal news summary regarding a trial between Bajwa (InfoSpan) and Emirates NBD over a product called SpanCash. The text contrasts the closing arguments of attorney Isaacson, who used patriotic rhetoric, against attorney Ruemmler (likely Kathryn Ruemmler), who dismantled the plaintiff's case by arguing the product was never functional. It also details the arrest of InfoSpan deputy CEO Larry Scudder in Dubai for alleged fraud.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017623.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal text (likely a law journal article from the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) submitted as evidence in a House Oversight investigation, bearing the footer 'DAVID SCHOEN'. The text heavily critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically the OLC's 'contorted position' that victim rights only attach after formal charges are filed. It argues that this interpretation renders the statutory words 'detection' and 'investigation' meaningless and conflicts with standard definitions of when a prosecution begins.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032321.jpg
This is a court order filed on October 4, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding a civil case (No. 16 CV-7673) filed by a 'Jane Doe' against Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. Judge Ronnie Abrams orders an initial status conference for December 16, 2016, and requires the parties to submit a joint letter by December 9, 2016, outlining the nature of the action, jurisdiction, motions, and discovery status. The document bears a footer indicating it is part of House Oversight committee records.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity