SDNY
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
FBI (NY)
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
USANM
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
NM Attorney General
|
Jurisdictional agreement |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
SDFL
|
Independent government agencies |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
USVI US Attorney's Office
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
OIG
|
Oversight investigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Investigation Team
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
French Authorities
|
International cooperation |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Office of the Inspector General
|
Inter agency cooperation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. [REDACTED]
|
Witness cooperator |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Interagency collaboration |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
UK Authorities
|
Law enforcement cooperation inquired |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of Florida
|
Professional distancing |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Cooperative investigative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
U.S. Embassy Paris
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lisa Korologos
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
DOJ
|
Collaboration |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OCME
|
Professional |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Professional tension |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Victor Norris Hamilton
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Steve
|
Forensic support |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OCME
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Deutsche Bank
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
PAE
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Adjourned trial date for US v. Ghislaine Maxwell | New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Large Case-Related Expenses Request Submission | Washington, DC | View |
| N/A | N/A | Start of investigation into Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods | New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussions with SDNY | New York | View |
| 2023-04-17 | N/A | Deadline for SDNY to provide results of factual accuracy and sensitivity review of the OIG draft ... | N/A | View |
| 2023-04-10 | N/A | Transmission of draft OIG report to SDNY. | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-13 | N/A | Charges dismissed against Thomas and Noel after fulfilling agreement terms. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-11-01 | N/A | Scheduled start of Ghislaine Maxwell trial in New York. | New York, NY | View |
| 2021-10-27 | N/A | Original due date for the joint proposed request to charge (RTC) to the Court. | The Court (Judge Nathan) | View |
| 2021-09-21 | N/A | Production of travel records | New York | View |
| 2021-07-30 | N/A | CBP Officer confirms limitation of data: Outbound travel records between 1990-2000 were not recor... | New York | View |
| 2021-07-02 | N/A | Release of redacted autopsy report to 'the Times' and transmission to OCME. | New York | View |
| 2021-07-02 | N/A | Courtesy notice provided to Mark Epstein's attorney regarding the autopsy release. | Unknown | View |
| 2021-05-25 | N/A | Deferred prosecution agreements entered for Thomas and Noel. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-03-26 | N/A | SDNY issues a second subpoena for 'additional student records'. | New York / Michigan | View |
| 2021-03-26 | N/A | SDNY serves additional subpoena for student records. | Email correspondence | View |
| 2020-12-08 | N/A | Accepted: Call w. SDNY re. USVI Epstein Litigation | Redacted | View |
| 2020-12-07 | N/A | Renewed bail application filing for Ghislaine Maxwell (mentioned as 'Monday'). | New York | View |
| 2020-12-02 | N/A | Notification of Intent to File Bail Application | New York | View |
| 2020-11-20 | N/A | Maxwell Review Drives from SDNY - Inventory of originals and responsive materials | SDNY | View |
| 2020-11-12 | N/A | Transmittal of OPR's final Report in the Jeffrey Epstein matter to SDNY | N/A | View |
| 2020-11-02 | N/A | Scheduled conference call between Jeff Jocks and SDNY to discuss subpoena results. | Phone/Conference Line | View |
| 2020-10-30 | N/A | Shipment of Hard Drive via FedEx | Falls Church to NY | View |
| 2020-10-30 | N/A | Jeff Jocks confirms Interlochen has no records of payments by Epstein or his entities. | View | |
| 2020-10-23 | N/A | Call with SDNY regarding discovery and the Epstein investigation | Conference Call: 844-215-69... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021834.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated November 1, 2024, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It details her argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) should have barred her prosecution in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The text also references a 2019 DOJ OPR investigation into the original handling of the Epstein case by SDFL prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021833.jpg
This legal document page outlines the timeline of legal actions involving Epstein and Maxwell following Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It details Epstein's 2019 indictment and death, followed by Maxwell's indictment and a subsequent superseding indictment by the SDNY in 2021. The core of the text describes Maxwell's unsuccessful motion to dismiss her indictment by leveraging the language of Epstein's NPA, a motion which the District Court denied.
DOJ-OGR-00021788.jpg
This document is a Revised Notice of Hearing Date from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket # 22-1426cr). The notice, dated February 29, 2024, schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, allotting 10 minutes per side for arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00021786.jpg
This is a Revised Notice of Hearing Date from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The document schedules an oral argument for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, allotting 10 minutes per side. It provides instructions for counsel regarding registration, remote participation options, and withdrawal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00021784.jpg
This document is a Notice of Hearing Date from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket #: 22-1426cr). It schedules the oral argument for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 10:00 am at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City. The document outlines procedural rules regarding time allotment (10 minutes per side), registration, remote vs. in-person attendance, and withdrawal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00021779.jpg
This document is a Notice of Hearing Date from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket 22-1426cr). It schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 10:00 am at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City. The notice outlines procedural rules regarding attendance, time allotment (10 minutes per side), and protocols for motions to withdraw.
DOJ-OGR-00021754.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell should be considered a third-party beneficiary of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text cites legal precedents regarding plea agreements and asserts that the NPA's immunity for 'potential co-conspirators' extends to Maxwell for offenses between 2001 and 2007. A footnote highlights that Florida investigators interviewed victims Carolyn, Virginia Roberts, and Annie Farmer, establishing an overlap between the Florida investigation and the SDNY trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019463.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet (Case 20-3061) detailing the initial legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell from June 29, 2020, to July 6, 2020. It records the unsealing of the indictment, her arrest in New Hampshire, the assignment of the case to Judge Alison J. Nathan, and the filing of a motion to detain. The document also includes a detailed order from Judge Nathan discussing the scheduling of an arraignment and bail hearing, citing COVID-19 protocols and the logistical constraints of video appearances from the Metropolitan Detention Center.
DOJ-OGR-00019461.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket report (SDNY) for Case 20-3061, dated September 2020. It lists numerous pending felony counts against a defendant, including conspiracy to entice minors, coercion/enticement of minors for illegal sex acts, transportation of minors for criminal sexual activity, and perjury (false declarations). The document contains a Department of Justice stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019461) and appears to be part of the legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell, given the specific nature of the charges and the case timeline.
DOJ-OGR-00019392.jpg
A Notice of Defective Filing from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket 20-3061). The notice indicates that a letter submitted on behalf of the Appellant on September 23, 2020, did not comply with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) or Local Rules, though the specific reason is not checked on this page. The document lists Judge Nathan as the District Court Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00009222.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Nicole Simmons certifies that on February 9, 2022, she electronically filed 'Ghislaine Maxwell’s Reply in Support of Her Motion for a New Trial' and served it to the government counsel (Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Andrew Rohrbach, and Lara Pomerantz) at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009222.
DOJ-OGR-00008920.jpg
This is the signature page (Page 5 of 5) of a legal document filed on February 11, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It lists attorneys Abbe David Lowell and Christopher D. Man of Winston & Strawn LLP, and Joel B. Rudin of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, as counsel submitting the document.
DOJ-OGR-00019837.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated April 1, 2021) argues that the indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell is solely a result of Jeffrey Epstein's death and the subsequent media frenzy, claiming she is being used as a scapegoat. The text highlights that Maxwell was not charged in the 2008 Florida case or the 2019 SDNY case while Epstein was alive, and criticizes the government's lack of evidence during detention hearings regarding her flight risk. A footnote notes that the indictment was superseded on March 29 to include allegations from a fourth anonymous accuser dating back to 2001-2004.
DOJ-OGR-00019824.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Defective Filing' from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated April 1, 2021, regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket 21-58). The court clerk notified the appellant that a 'Notice of Appearance as Additional Counsel' submitted on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell was rejected because the PDF file was not text-searchable, violating Local Rules 25.1 and 25.2. The document lists Judge Nathan as the District Court judge and references the underlying SDNY docket number 1:20-cr-330-1.
DOJ-OGR-00019822.jpg
This document is a 'NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING' issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 1, 2021. It addresses a 'Notice of Appearance as Substitute Counsel' submitted on March 30, 2021, on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, stating that the filing does not comply with federal and local court rules. The notice lists numerous specific reasons for the defect, ranging from missing acknowledgments and supporting papers to formatting issues like incorrect pagination and font.
DOJ-OGR-00019770.jpg
This is a formal court notice from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated March 29, 2021. It confirms that the 'Record on Appeal - Electronic Index' has been filed in the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket #: 21-770), originating from the SDNY under Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019681.jpg
This document is a 'Bill of Costs Instructions' sheet from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020. It relates to the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket #: 20-3061cr) and outlines the procedural requirements for filing a bill of costs under FRAP 39. The document lists the presiding judges (Chief Judge Livingston and DC Judge Nathan) and provides specific rules regarding filing deadlines, verification, service, and allowable printing charges.
DOJ-OGR-00010656.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 3 of the specific letter, page 65 of the filing) of a legal opinion written by Bruce A. Green. It addresses an ethical 'candor obligation' to inform the court about potential false information. The document was filed on June 24, 2022, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) and is marked subject to a protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00010451.jpg
This legal document excerpt argues that the government, specifically the SDNY, shifted its focus to prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell for old crimes after choosing not to prosecute other alleged accomplices of Epstein. It highlights that this occurred after Epstein's arrest and death, leading to a 'tsunami' of negative media coverage that vilified Maxwell and shaped public opinion against her before her trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009901.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed on March 11, 2022, for the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Signed by Nicole Simmons, it certifies that on February 9, 2022, "Ghislaine Maxwell’s Reply in Support of Her Motion for a New Trial" was electronically filed with the court and served to the government's counsel at the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York.
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-00002938.jpg
This document is a table of contents for a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines legal arguments against various motions made by the defendant, including challenges to the indictment, requests for disclosure, and the propriety of using a grand jury in White Plains. The filing also addresses the defendant's claim that the grand jury unfairly represented Blacks or Hispanics.
DOJ-OGR-00004907.jpg
This document is a page from a sealed court transcript filed on July 2, 2021, as part of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The transcript captures a dialogue between the Court and attorney Mr. Rossmiller regarding the definition of confidential materials involving plaintiff Virginia Roberts and a subpoena issued to the law firm Boies Schiller. The discussion focuses on privilege, privacy interests, and a proposed order submitted to Judge Sweet.
DOJ-OGR-00004808.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government on July 1, 2021, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues that statements made to the media by defense appellate counsel, Mr. Markus, violate Local Rule 23.1. The filing specifically cites a recent Op-Ed where Markus compared his client's case to Bill Cosby's, arguing these extrajudicial comments are designed to prejudice potential jurors and interfere with a fair trial. The Government asserts that relief is warranted to prevent further prejudicial statements.
DOJ-OGR-00005552.jpg
This legal document summarizes the recollections of an individual identified as "AK" regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. AK recalls the topic resurfacing due to a Miami Herald article, her interactions with the Public Corruption unit around February 2016, and sharing case materials with individuals like Alison Moe. AK asserts she had no role in opening the subsequent SDNY investigation into Epstein and was disturbed by how the case was initially resolved in the SDFL.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity