S.D.N.Y.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00020781.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court ruling (Document 207) filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Maxwell. The court is denying Maxwell's motion to dismiss perjury counts, arguing that the ambiguity of questions and the materiality of her statements are issues of fact for a jury to decide, not grounds for pretrial dismissal. The text cites legal precedents regarding perjury, materiality in civil depositions, and the role of the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00020779.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in the case against Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The court addresses and rejects several of Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is impermissibly vague, specifically concerning the lack of precise dates for the alleged abuse, the inclusion of noncriminal conduct, and the omission of victims' names. The court cites legal precedents to affirm that the indictment is sufficient, particularly in cases involving the sexual abuse of children where victims may struggle to recall exact dates.
DOJ-OGR-00020776.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss an indictment based on pre-indictment delay. Maxwell argues the delay prejudiced her defense because potential witnesses, including Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, have died. The court rejects this argument, finding no evidence of improper government purpose for the delay and concluding that Maxwell's claims about what deceased witnesses might have testified are too speculative to meet the high standard required for dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00020670.jpg
This document is a court docket log from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York, detailing filings from July and August 2021. Key events include letters filed by Maxwell's defense team, a motion to suppress evidence, and a significant order from Judge Alison J. Nathan admonishing attorney David Markus for writing an op-ed about the case. The log culminates with the court denying Maxwell's supplemental pre-trial motions.
DOJ-OGR-00020515.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, listing entries from April 15 and April 16, 2021. It details a motion to continue the trial date, an order regarding redactions of documents, a government memorandum opposing various defense motions to dismiss or suppress evidence, and an order regarding the filing of reply briefs and redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00020512.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from March 2021 in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details Judge Alison J. Nathan's order regarding the handling of subpoenas involving alleged victims, specifically requiring a law firm (Boies Schiller Flexner LLP) to coordinate with defense counsel on redactions and objections. The docket also records Maxwell's Notice of Appeal, the filing of several sealed documents, and the formal appearance of attorneys David Boies and Sigrid S. McCawley on behalf of the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00020429.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from July and August 2021 for the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It details a series of filings, including letters from Maxwell's counsel and motions from the U.S. government. A significant event is the court's order addressing an op-ed written by attorney David Markus, which led to him being ordered to comply with local rules regarding extrajudicial statements that could prejudice a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020414.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 15-16, 2021. It lists several entries, including a motion by the defense to continue the trial date, an order by Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding redactions and the docketing of legal memorandums, and the Government's memorandum in opposition to twelve pre-trial motions filed by the defense. The judge also issued an order regarding the filing of reply briefs and procedures for requesting redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00020412.jpg
This document is a court docket log from Case 22-1426, detailing filings and orders from late March 2021 in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include the filing of a superseding indictment by the U.S. government, multiple letters and orders concerning redactions in court documents, motions related to subpoenas, and the payment of appeal fees. The log shows active litigation between Maxwell's defense team, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and the prosecution, all under the supervision of Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00020405.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from December 2020 regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It details the denial of Maxwell's renewed motion for bail, with Judge Alison J. Nathan citing her as a clear flight risk and affirming that pretrial detention is warranted. The document also lists specific charges against Maxwell, including conspiracy to entice minors and sex trafficking, and outlines procedures for redactions to protect third-party privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00020404.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from Case 22-1426, detailing legal filings and orders from December 2020 related to defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries primarily concern Maxwell's renewed application for bail, the government's opposition, and the court's orders regarding the redaction of documents filed under seal. The orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan apply legal tests from cases like Lugosch v. Pyramid and United States v. Amodeo to balance the public's right of access with the privacy interests of third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00002412.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, a federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 1623), and various Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure that are cited as legal precedent within the associated court document. The cases listed involve parties such as Giuffre, Dershowitz, Maxwell, and the United States government.
DOJ-OGR-00002368(1).jpg
This document is page 16 (filed page 21 of 23) of a defense motion in the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The defense argues for an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged coordination between the government and a redacted third party who provided Maxwell's 2016 civil deposition transcripts to 'stir up a criminal prosecution.' The motion requests the suppression of evidence obtained from this redacted party, specifically the April and July 2016 depositions, and the dismissal of Counts Five and Six.
DOJ-OGR-00002367(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues that the court has the inherent authority to suppress evidence obtained through the government's misrepresentation. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that this power is not limited to misconduct within the immediate courtroom but can extend to related actions in other proceedings. The core argument is that the government's deception was essential to obtaining the factual basis for certain counts, and therefore, the resulting evidence should be suppressed.
DOJ-OGR-00002363(1).jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing requesting the suppression of evidence and dismissal of certain counts. The argument centers on the crucial role of protective orders in civil litigation, citing legal precedents to assert that these orders encourage full disclosure and must be strictly enforced. The filing applies this principle to the "Maxwell depositions," which it characterizes as highly intrusive, to argue against the use of evidence derived from them.
DOJ-OGR-00002358(2).jpg
This legal document describes the aftermath of a 2017 defamation case settlement between Giuffre and Maxwell, noting Maxwell's unsuccessful attempts to have confidential information returned by the law firm Boies Schiller. It then alleges that in August 2020, Maxwell discovered the government had improperly obtained a file related to the case through an ex parte proceeding, violating a Protective Order that required notice to all parties.
DOJ-OGR-00002353.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on February 4, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to suppress evidence and dismiss two perjury counts against her. The motion argues that the government unlawfully obtained evidence from her civil depositions in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case via a grand jury subpoena, thereby violating a Protective Order from that civil case which prohibited sharing discovery materials with law enforcement.
DOJ-OGR-00002353(3).jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on February 4, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to suppress evidence and dismiss two perjury counts. The motion argues that the government unlawfully obtained evidence from Maxwell's civil depositions in a separate defamation case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) via a grand jury subpoena, thereby violating a Protective Order that prohibited sharing that material with law enforcement.
DOJ-OGR-00002350.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases from various U.S. courts, including District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and cover a range of civil and criminal matters.
DOJ-OGR-00002329(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, presents an analysis by a 'Mr. Martin' concerning the underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic jurors. The analysis compares the demographic composition of the 'White Plains qualified wheel' (juror pool) to the eligible juror populations of the Manhattan Division and the entire Southern District of New York, finding significant disparities. This argument is being made in the context of a case involving 'Epstein's New York residence,' which is located in the Manhattan Division.
DOJ-OGR-00002323(1).jpg
This document is page 'ii' (labeled Page 3 of 13 in the PDF) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (Cases) and Statutes cited elsewhere in the filing. The citations heavily reference cases involving jury selection and fair representation (e.g., Duren v. Missouri, Taylor v. Louisiana), suggesting the main document likely involves a motion regarding jury composition or selection.
DOJ-OGR-00002315.jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, argues that the indictment against Ms. Maxwell lacks sufficient specificity regarding the alleged crimes and the identities of accusers/victims. It contends that the open-ended time periods and vague descriptions of 'minor girls' or 'victims' in the indictment make it impossible for Ms. Maxwell to prepare an adequate defense or apply the statute of limitations. The document cites legal precedents to support the argument for greater specificity in criminal charges.
DOJ-OGR-00002315(1).jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing that the indictment against Ms. Maxwell is insufficient for her to prepare a defense. The filing claims the indictment uses vague, open-ended time periods for the alleged crimes (e.g., 'from at least in or about 1994') and fails to specifically identify the accusers, referring to them with general terms like 'minor girls' and 'victims'. This vagueness, the document argues, makes it impossible to apply the statute of limitations or know who the government considers a victim.
DOJ-OGR-00002313.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Document 124) in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It lists four legal cases and one federal rule of criminal procedure as legal precedent for arguments made within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1962 to 2019 and involve various individuals in legal proceedings against the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00002286.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the 'joinder' (combining) and 'severance' (separating) of criminal charges, citing various precedents to argue that offenses separated by time, location, or circumstance should not be tried together. It specifically addresses the standards for joining perjury or false statement counts with substantive crimes.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity