S.D.N.Y.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001214.jpg
This legal document is a page from a motion arguing for a defendant's release on bail. The defendant proposes a new, comprehensive $28.5 million bail package, secured by property and cash, and co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family. The proposed conditions also include home confinement with GPS monitoring, custody by a family member, and security services, all intended to mitigate the court's previous concerns about her being a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001163.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is invalid. It cites two main points: first, the precedent of France refusing to extradite its own citizens, as seen in the case of Peterson, a dual US-French national; and second, the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires that any consent to extradition be evaluated by a judge in real-time with legal counsel present, rendering any prior 'anticipatory waiver' meaningless.
DOJ-OGR-00001161.jpg
This legal document argues that if the defendant, a French citizen, flees to France, she cannot be extradited to the United States. This assertion is based on a confirmation from the French Ministry of Justice, which stated that France has an inflexible principle of not extraditing its citizens to the U.S. The document further supports this claim with legal precedent from the case *United States v. Cilins*, concluding that any extradition waiver signed in the U.S. would be unenforceable in France.
DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
This legal document outlines the statutory framework for pretrial detention in cases involving minor victims, establishing a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community. It details the defendant's burden to produce evidence to counter this presumption and clarifies that the government retains the ultimate burden of proof. The document also specifies the conditions under which a detention hearing can be reopened, primarily requiring new, material information that was previously unknown to the moving party.
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00001110.jpg
This legal document argues for the reconsideration of Ms. Maxwell's bail application. It cites several legal precedents that allow a court to reopen bail hearings based on new evidence or changed circumstances. The primary new evidence cited is the voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) produced by the government after the initial hearing, which the defense claims raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00001100.jpg
This document is a "Table of Authorities" from a legal filing, specifically page iii of a larger document. It lists thirteen federal court cases, providing their full citations, the dates of the decisions, and the page numbers within the filing where each case is referenced. All listed cases feature the United States as a party.
DOJ-OGR-00001002.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2020, argues against a defendant's request for temporary release by citing two recent S.D.N.Y. precedents (involving Gonzalez and Eley) where release was denied due to trials not being imminent. The filing also asserts that the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) has been responsive and accommodating to defense counsel's requests for client access, undermining the claim that release is necessary for trial preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00000998.jpg
This document is page 14 of a government filing (Document 220) from July 13, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text argues against granting bail, citing the defendant's vast financial resources, lack of ties to the US, and motivation to flee to a non-extradition country. It also specifically argues that the COVID-19 pandemic does not justify her release, citing precedent from other cases in the district.
DOJ-OGR-00000997.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant should be denied bail and home confinement. The prosecution contends the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her access to over $20 million in financial resources, her refusal to account for this wealth, and her ability to maintain relationships remotely. The document cites several legal precedents to argue that GPS ankle-bracelet monitoring is not a reliable means of preventing flight.
DOJ-OGR-00000982.jpg
This legal document is a page from a bail application for Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 10, 2020. The argument presented is that her proposed bail conditions are consistent with precedents set in other high-profile cases within the same circuit, citing the releases of defendants like Esposito, Marc Dreier, and Bernie Madoff, who were also considered significant flight risks. The document also notes that Maxwell is not relying on her family and friends to co-sign the bond in order to protect their privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00000968.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Document 18, filed July 10, 2020) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense counsel argues for Maxwell's release on bail, citing the inability to effectively communicate with her due to MDC's COVID-19 protocols, which restrict in-person visits and delay phone calls. The text details a specific incident on July 6, 2020, where counsel struggled to connect with Maxwell to comply with a court order, and footnotes cite legal precedents where other defendants were released due to similar pandemic-related restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00000959.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 16, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases, primarily criminal cases with the United States as a party, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cited cases span from 1978 to 2020 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
DOJ-OGR-00000900.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet (Case 21-770) covering March 22–24, 2021. It details the denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for bail by Judge Alison J. Nathan and Maxwell's subsequent notice of appeal. Additionally, it contains a significant order regarding a defense subpoena directed at a law firm representing alleged victims, outlining the procedural requirements for victim notification and privacy protection under Rule 17(c)(3).
DOJ-OGR-00000886.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing legal filings and orders from late July 2020. It includes entries regarding motions for a protective order, responses from both the defense and prosecution, and a Memorandum Opinion & Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan resolving disputes over the protective order's language concerning victim identification and the use of discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00000867.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 22, 2021, that discusses the legal standards for pretrial detention and the reopening of bail hearings. It references the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), which allows for reopening a hearing with new, material information, and also cites case law (Raniere, Havens, Rowe, Petrov) to establish that a court has inherent authority to reconsider its own bail decisions even without new evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00000862.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from March 2021 covering the denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for bail and her subsequent appeal of that decision. It also details a legal dispute regarding a defense subpoena targeting a law firm representing alleged victims, with Judge Nathan ordering the firm to formally file objections to protect victim privacy under Rule 17(c)(3). The document lists various filings including letters from prosecutors (AUSAs) and defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00000848.jpg
This document is a docket sheet page from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings from July 27 to July 30, 2020. It details a dispute over a protective order, specifically regarding Maxwell's ability to publicly name alleged victims who have previously spoken publicly about her or Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an order siding with the Government, restricting Maxwell from publicly referencing alleged victims and witnesses to protect their privacy during the criminal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00000813.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court filing from July 18, 2019, denying aspects of Jeffrey Epstein's bail proposal. The Court argues that the defense's home confinement plan would require excessive judicial oversight and that private security is less secure than actual jail. The Court also dismisses Epstein's offer to waive extradition rights as an 'empty gesture' that no foreign country would likely honor if he fled.
DOJ-OGR-00000770.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of victim Annie Farmer by her counsel Sigrid S. McCawley, argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing supports redacting victims' personal information for privacy but strongly opposes redacting the names of co-conspirators and enablers, asserting that their identities should be public to ensure accountability and justice. It references other civil lawsuits against entities like JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank as part of a broader effort to hold third parties involved in the sex-trafficking scheme accountable.
DOJ-OGR-00000769.jpg
This legal document argues for the release of grand jury transcripts with narrowly tailored redactions to protect the identities of victims like Ms. Farmer, citing their strong privacy interests as established in previous cases. However, it argues against redacting the names of third parties who have not been charged or alleged to be involved in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, suggesting such an effort "smacks of a cover up" and requires independent court scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00000768.jpg
This legal document argues for the disclosure of grand jury transcripts in the case of Epstein and Maxwell. It contends that the extraordinary nature of their crimes, the vast number of victims, and the public interest in full accountability outweigh the usual need for grand jury secrecy. The filing emphasizes that unsealing the transcripts would help expose the full network of enablers without forcing victims to face further retaliation and that the victims themselves support this transparency.
DOJ-OGR-00000762.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer, filed on August 5, 2025. The Government responds to a court order demanding information about the potential unsealing of grand jury materials from the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government acknowledges the public's strong right of access to trial exhibits, noting that exhibits from the Maxwell trial were already made public, but requests an extension until August 8, 2025, to provide its final position on unsealing the grand jury exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00000751.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated July 29, 2025, concerning the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for disclosure based on intense public interest and the 'magnitude and abhorrence' of Epstein's crimes, while noting that victim identification will be redacted. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum and details the dates of the original grand jury proceedings in 2019, 2020, and 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00000501.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, critiques Mr. Epstein's proposed bail package, arguing that his home confinement plan involves excessive judicial oversight and raises practical concerns about private security. It also dismisses the defense's offer of an anticipatory extradition waiver as an 'empty gesture,' citing the Department of Justice's view that such waivers are not binding and the risk of the defendant fleeing to a non-extradition jurisdiction.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity