David Oscar Markus
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
21
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
she (unnamed client)
|
Client |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
MARKUS/MOSS PLLC
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Leah S. Saffian
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
TODD BLANCHE
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Professional co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Melissa Madrigal
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Leah S. Saffian
|
Co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alison Moe
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lara Pomerantz
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lara Pomerantz
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Petitioner
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Represented by |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
MARKUS/MOSS PLLC
|
Employment |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Co counsel defense team |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
MARKUS/MOSS PLLC
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
[Redacted] (USANYS)
|
Opposing counsel |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Petitioner
|
Counsel for |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court order | The court granted the motion for David Oscar Markus to be admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in th... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2025-08-05 | Court filing | A legal document was filed arguing that the government's motion to unseal grand jury materials sh... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-28 | N/A | Filing of Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari | Supreme Court of the United... | View |
| 2025-07-28 | N/A | Submission of a legal document (petition for certiorari) | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-25 | N/A | Continuation of the proffer meeting. | Office of the United States... | View |
| 2025-07-24 | N/A | Proffer meeting between Ghislaine Maxwell, her attorney, and the Deputy Attorney General. | Office of the United States... | View |
| 2025-07-22 | N/A | Filing of Notice of Appearance by David Oscar Markus | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2025-07-22 | Court order | The court granted the motion of David Oscar Markus for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice, allowi... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2025-07-21 | Notarization | The affidavit signed by David Oscar Markus was notarized. | State of Florida | View |
| 2025-07-21 | Legal filing | David Oscar Markus filed an affidavit in support of a motion to appear pro hac vice in the case o... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2025-07-21 | Legal filing | A Proposed Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice for David Oscar Markus was filed with the court. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2025-05-09 | N/A | Service of Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of ... | New York, NY (Affidavit exe... | View |
| 2025-04-10 | N/A | Submission of a legal document, likely a petition for certiorari. | N/A | View |
| 2025-03-03 | N/A | Scheduled start of trial US v. Diego Sanudo Sanchez Chocron | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | A copy of the Petitioner's Application for Extension of Time to File Certiorari Petition was serv... | Washington, D.C. | View |
| 2025-01-14 | N/A | Counsel retained (Note: Document likely contains typo saying 2024, context suggests 2025) | N/A | View |
| 2021-07-30 | N/A | Deadline for David Oscar Markus to respond to the court order. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-07-12 | Court filing | Letter filed by David Oscar Markus arguing that a government request should be denied. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2021-06-30 | N/A | The Government filed a letter directed at David Oscar Markus. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-05-17 | Legal filing | A document was e-filed in Case 21-770, as certified by David Oscar Markus. | N/A | View |
| 2021-05-17 | N/A | Submission of legal filing requesting a hearing on confinement conditions | District Court | View |
| 2021-05-17 | Legal filing | Filing of 'Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell’s Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release' in the case No. 21-... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2021-05-17 | N/A | e-filing of legal documents | N/A | View |
| 2021-05-17 | N/A | Filing of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell’s Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2021-05-17 | Legal filing | Filing of a 'Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release' on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. | UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000215.jpg
This is an Affidavit of Service filed in the Supreme Court of the United States for case No. 24-1073, Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. On May 9, 2025, Rina Danielson served a 'Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner' upon the attorneys for both parties (David Oscar Markus and Solicitor General D. John Sauer) via mail. The document is stamped with DOJ bates number DOJ-OGR-00000215.
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-00020530.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from July to August 2021 detailing legal maneuvers in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Significant entries involve a dispute over an Op-Ed written by attorney David Oscar Markus, leading to a court order enforcing Local Criminal Rule 23.1 regarding extrajudicial statements to protect the integrity of the trial. Additionally, the defense filed motions referencing the 'Cosby Opinion' and sought to suppress evidence obtained from a subpoena to the law firm Boies Schiller.
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-00019862.jpg
This document is a signature page and Certificate of Service for a legal filing submitted by David Oscar Markus of Markus/Moss PLLC on April 1, 2021. It includes a citation for a separate case, 'United States v. Dashawn Robertson' (District of New Mexico), likely referenced as case law or an exhibit within the larger filing. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019862).
DOJ-OGR-00019860.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing titled 'Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell's Appendix to the Motion for Pretrial Release', dated April 1, 2021. The filing is part of an appeal (No. 21-770 & 21-58) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, originating from a case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties are the United States of America (Appellee) and Ghislaine Maxwell (Appellant), who is represented by attorney David Oscar Markus of MARKUS/MOSS PLLC.
DOJ-OGR-00019859.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021. It contains a Certificate of Compliance regarding word count and formatting rules, and a Certificate of Service confirming the document was e-filed. Both certificates are signed by attorney David Oscar Markus.
DOJ-OGR-00019858.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated April 1, 2021, submitted by attorney David Oscar Markus on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that Maxwell is being unfairly detained under unacceptable conditions due to the "Epstein effect" and formally requests her release on bail or an evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00019829.jpg
This document is a Motion Information Statement filed on April 1, 2021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case 21-770/21-58). Ghislaine Maxwell, represented by attorney David Oscar Markus, is appealing a decision by Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York, requesting reasonable bail or an evidentiary hearing. The motion is opposed by the United States of America, represented by AUSA Won S. Shin.
DOJ-OGR-00019826.jpg
A legal Notice of Appearance filed on April 1, 2021, for the case United States of America v. Maxwell. Attorney David Oscar Markus of the firm Markus/Moss PLLC formally enters the case as additional counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, noting that he will be co-counsel with Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP.
DOJ-OGR-00019796.jpg
This document is a Notice of Appeal filed on March 24, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (20-CR-00330-AJN). The appeal is directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and challenges the District Court's order from March 22, 2021, which denied her third motion for release on bail. The document lists Maxwell's counsel as David Oscar Markus and the Assistant U.S. Attorneys as Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz.
DOJ-OGR-00019746.jpg
This document is a Criminal Notice of Appeal filed on March 24, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. Ghislaine Maxwell, represented by David Oscar Markus, is appealing the 'Order on Third Motion for Release on Bail' entered on March 22, 2021. The document lists the legal counsel for both the defense and the prosecution (Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz) and notes that Maxwell's bail disposition is 'Committed'.
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-00020339.jpg
This document is the cover page for Ghislaine Maxwell's Appendix to her Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release, filed on May 17, 2021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It lists the legal counsel representing Maxwell (Leah S. Saffian and David Oscar Markus) and references the underlying case in the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00020338.jpg
This document is the final page (Page 14) of a legal filing related to Case 21-58, dated May 17, 2021. It contains a Certificate of Compliance regarding word count and formatting rules (Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure), and a Certificate of Service confirming the document was e-filed. Both certificates are signed by attorney David Oscar Markus.
DOJ-OGR-00020337.jpg
This document is a legal filing dated May 17, 2021, requesting the district court to hold a hearing regarding the conditions of someone's confinement. It was respectfully submitted by attorneys Leah S. Saffian and David Oscar Markus, representing their respective law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00020326.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing dated May 17, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It is a 'Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release' filed by Maxwell's attorneys, Leah S. Saffian and David Oscar Markus, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The motion is an appeal of a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00020325.jpg
This document is a Motion Information Statement filed on May 17, 2021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney David Oscar Markus, on behalf of his client Ghislaine Maxwell, is submitting a 'Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release' or alternatively requesting a remand for an evidentiary hearing. The motion is opposed by the U.S. government, represented by AUSA Lara Pomerantz.
DOJ-OGR-00002802.jpg
This document is a Criminal Notice of Appeal filed on March 24, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. Ghislaine Maxwell, represented by David Oscar Markus, is appealing the court's March 22, 2021 'Order on Third Motion for Release on Bail' to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The document confirms Maxwell's status as committed (incarcerated) and lists the Assistant U.S. Attorneys prosecuting the case.
DOJ-OGR-00020340.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing from May 17, 2021, in case 21-58. It contains an appendix listing recent court orders and filings related to Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions, including a letter from her, a response from the government, and her subsequent reply. The document was respectfully submitted by her legal counsel, Leah S. Saffian and David Oscar Markus of MARKUS/MOSS PLLC.
No Subject
Email address for David Oscar Markus: DMARKUS@MARKUSLAW.COM
No Subject
Phone: (305) 379-6667, Email: dmarkus@markuslaw.com
No Subject
dmarkus@markuslaw.com
No Subject
Phone number for Markus/Moss PLLC: 305-379-6667
Service of Amicus Brief
Service of three copies of Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner via Priority Mail.
Response of David Oscar Markus in United States v. Maxwel...
Markus submitting a responsive letter to the court via email because he lacks filing privileges in SDNY. He requests it be filed on the public docket.
Re: Response of David Oscar Markus in United States v. Ma...
Chambers sending an attached order (20cr330_Order_7.30.21.pdf) in response to Markus's email.
Response to Government Request
States he does not represent Maxwell currently and his Op-Ed did not violate local rules.
Response to Government's request
A letter arguing the government's request should be denied because the undersigned counsel does not represent Ms. Maxwell and the Op-Ed did not violate local rules.
Denial of Government's Request
A letter arguing the Government's request should be denied because Markus does not currently represent Maxwell and his op-ed did not violate local rules.
2nd Circuit
Notifying opposing counsel of intent to file a renewed motion for bond in the Second Circuit based on a Friday ruling.
Certificate of Service for a legal document
David Oscar Markus certifies that a true and correct copy of a foregoing document was e-filed on May 17, 2021.
Filing of Petition
Certification that the document was e-filed on this date.
Certificate of Service for a legal document
David Oscar Markus certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was e-filed on April 19, 2021.
Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Asks if government will file other pleadings unredacted as well, stating the court should have them all.
Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell
No objection.
Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Intention to submit motion to file unredacted copy of Exhibit F under seal. Asks for consent.
Notice of Appearance for Ghislaine Maxwell
This document is a formal notice filed with the court by attorney David Oscar Markus to state that he is now representing Ghislaine Maxwell as additional counsel in case 21-770/21-58.
E-filing of legal petition
I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was e-filed this 1st day of April, 2021.
Certificate of Service
Certification that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was e-filed.
Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Asks for government's position on expediting the appeal.
Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Asks if Markus is asking to expedite Court's consideration or shorten timeline for responding.
Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Replies 'Both'.
Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell
States they do not oppose expediting consideration but DO oppose shortening the ten days to respond.
Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Agrees not to ask to shorten the 10 days if government doesn't ask for extension.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity