federal court
LocationRelationship Network
EFTA00024556.pdf
This document is a press release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York dated July 2, 2020, announcing the arrest and charging of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details allegations that between 1994 and 1997, Maxwell conspired with Jeffrey Epstein to entice, transport, and sexually abuse minors, playing a critical role in grooming victims. The document also notes she is charged with perjury regarding false statements made in 2016 depositions.
EFTA00011037.pdf
This document is an internal email dated January 14, 2021, containing 'SDNY Press Clippings' circulated within the Department of Justice. It aggregates news headlines relevant to the Southern District of New York, including a Toyota settlement, the Capitol riots arrests, Trump's impeachment, and a variety article about a scripted adaptation of the 'Hunting Ghislaine' podcast. The email highlights media coverage of ongoing legal and political events of interest to the SDNY office.
DOJ-OGR-00020676.jpg
This document is a docket report from the SDNY case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426) covering entries from October 18-21, 2021. It details pre-trial motions regarding jury selection (voir dire), motions in limine, and sealing requests, as well as orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan scheduling a telephone conference. Notably, media organizations and reporters filed letters opposing 'secret jury selection' and the sealing of juror questionnaires.
DOJ-OGR-00020536.jpg
This document is a docket sheet page from October 2021 regarding the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It details a pretrial conference held via telephone on October 21, 2021, attended by the defendant and legal teams. Significant entries include Judge Nathan's order (Doc 364) establishing jury selection protocols, denying a defense request to seal questionnaires, and addressing media opposition to secret proceedings filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
DOJ-OGR-00009241.jpg
This document is a condensed court transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas', filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, regarding her alcohol consumption (specifically 'cheap vodka') and her behavior during a previous court appearance before Judge Pauley on December 20th. The testimony highlights erratic statements Conrad previously made to Judge Pauley, including comments about his intelligence, his attendance at Duke University, and his potential desire for a 'Clinton appointment'.
DOJ-OGR-00009240.jpg
This court transcript from February 15, 2012, documents the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who is also a trained lawyer. The questioning centers on her defiance of a court order to appear, having told Judge Pauley's clerk she was not coming, and her rationale for this action which she is unable to explain. The testimony also reveals she was unaware of a potential immunity deal and had met with her apparent counsel, Ms. Sternheim, six times before the hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009920.jpg
This document is a condensed transcript (pages 109-112) from the case United States v. Daugerdas (2012), ostensibly filed as Exhibit A-5637 in the later Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The transcript features the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad, focusing on her alcohol consumption (specifically 'cheap vodka') and a previous erratic court appearance on December 20th before Judge Pauley. The questioning highlights her bizarre statements to Judge Pauley regarding Duke University football and 'Clinton appointments,' seemingly to attack her credibility or mental state.
DOJ-OGR-00004598.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding the notification of victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights that prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta) deliberately chose not to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or their rights to damages, citing concerns that doing so would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses and give the appearance of financial motivation. The document specifically references interviews with victim Courtney Wild and others in early 2008 where the existence of the signed NPA was withheld.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity