UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Alison Moe
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
ANDREW ROHRBACH
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Lara Pomerantz
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Dashawn Robertson
|
Adversarial defendant vs plaintiff |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
TOVA NOEL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Michael Thomas
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALEXANDER ROSSMILLER
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. MOE
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAURENE R. COMEY
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Todd Blanche
|
Professional employment representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lara Pomerantz
|
Client |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Appeal | The document pertains to an appeal (Case 20-3061) before the United States Court of Appeals for t... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| N/A | Oral argument request | Request for oral argument in case 20-3061, with a preference for it only if another party also re... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Court proceedings for the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. | Southern District | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Upcoming pre-trial proceedings and trial for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Ma... | courthouse | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | Instructions for filing a bill of costs in the case United States of America v. Maxwell, Docket #... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Legal proceeding | Sentencing | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2022-06-22 | Legal deadline | Government sentencing submission due | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2022-06-06 | Legal deadline | Government response due | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2021-06-02 | Court proceeding | The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an order denying Ghislaine Maxwe... | Thurgood Marshall United St... | View |
| 2021-04-27 | Legal proceeding | The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held a term and issued an order affirmi... | Thurgood Marshall United St... | View |
| 2021-03-26 | Legal filing | Filing of a Declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support of Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-02-04 | Pretrial conference | The Court discussed Dashawn Robertson's motion at length with the parties and the USPO. | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-02 | Deadline | Deadline for the Government to respond to the Defendant's November 25, 2020 letter request and th... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Legal proceeding | A court proceeding for the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. | SOUTHERN DISTRICT | View |
DOJ-OGR-00015537.jpg
This document is a legal stipulation filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (S2 20 CR 330 AJN). In it, both the prosecution and the defense agree to the authenticity of three government exhibits (11, 12, and 13), which are certified copies of birth certificates from the states of New York, Rhode Island, and Missouri. This agreement serves to enter these documents into evidence without the need for further authentication in court.
DOJ-OGR-00015169.jpg
This is a legal stipulation in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (S2 20 CR 330). Both the prosecution and defense agree that on August 17, 2021, attorney Robert Glassman told a prosecutor that he had previously advised his client, a witness known as 'Jane', to cooperate because it was 'morally right' and would 'help her case.' This document is marked as Defendant's Exhibit A-6.
DOJ-OGR-00015164.jpg
This document is a legal stipulation in the case of the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed in the Southern District of New York. It states as an agreed-upon fact that a witness, referred to as "Kate," and her counsel met with government prosecutors on September 3, 2021. During this meeting, Kate's counsel provided a partially completed U-Visa application and discussed her visa status with the prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00002410.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal motion filed on February 4, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The motion, submitted by Maxwell's legal team, seeks to dismiss counts five and six of the superseding indictment. The grounds for dismissal are that the alleged misstatements are not perjurious as a matter of law.
DOJ-OGR-00002346.jpg
This is a Notice of Motion filed on February 4, 2021 (dated January 25, 2021) in the Southern District of New York regarding the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense is moving to suppress evidence obtained from a specific government subpoena (the target of which is redacted) and to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment, citing Due Process violations. The defense also requested oral arguments for this motion.
DOJ-OGR-00002346(1).jpg
This is a Notice of Motion (Pretrial Motion #3) filed on February 4, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the SDNY. Maxwell's defense is moving to suppress evidence obtained via a government subpoena to a redacted entity and to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment based on the Due Process Clause.
DOJ-OGR-00002344.jpg
This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated February 4, 2021. The order approves the Defendant's and Government's requests to redact sensitive information from several pre-trial motions filed on January 25, 2021. The judge cites the 'Lugosch' test as the legal standard for balancing public access against the need for confidentiality.
DOJ-OGR-00002344(1).jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on February 4, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order rules on the defendant's pre-trial motions concerning the redaction of sensitive information, adopting most of the proposed redactions from both the defendant and the government. The Court's decision is based on a three-part legal test established by the Second Circuit for balancing the presumption of public access against competing considerations.
DOJ-OGR-00002334.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 26, 2021. The order, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan, addresses twelve pre-trial motions filed by the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, on January 25, 2021. Because Maxwell requested redactions of sensitive information, the order grants the Government two days to respond to the proposed redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00002334(1).jpg
This represents a court order from the Southern District of New York in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 26, 2021. Judge Alison J. Nathan acknowledges the filing of twelve pre-trial motions by the defense, noting that several are under temporary seal due to requests for redaction of sensitive information. The order grants the Government two days to respond to these proposed redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00002321.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal memorandum filed on January 25, 2021, in the Southern District of New York (Case 20 Cr. 330). It is a filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team supporting a motion to dismiss a superseding indictment based on alleged Sixth Amendment violations. The page lists the defense attorneys from three different law firms representing Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002321(1).jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal memorandum filed on January 25, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The filing is made by the attorneys for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The memorandum supports a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment against Maxwell, arguing it was obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00002319.jpg
This document is a legal filing from January 25, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. It is a 'Notice of Motion' submitted by Maxwell's defense attorneys from the firm Cohen & Gresser LLP. The motion seeks to dismiss the superseding indictment against her, arguing that it was obtained in violation of her Sixth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00002319(1).jpg
This document is a legal filing from January 25, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. It is a Notice of Motion submitted by Maxwell's attorneys at Cohen & Gresser LLP to dismiss the superseding indictment against her. The motion argues that the indictment was obtained in violation of her Sixth Amendment rights and requests an oral argument on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00002311(1).jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal memorandum filed on January 25, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The memorandum, submitted by Maxwell's legal team, supports a motion to dismiss four counts of the superseding indictment against her, arguing a lack of specificity. The document identifies Maxwell as the defendant and lists her attorneys from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00002309.jpg
This document is a Notice of Motion filed on January 25, 2021, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her counsel, is formally requesting the dismissal of Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment, citing a 'Lack of Specificity.' The defense also requests an oral argument regarding this motion (Pretrial Motion #12).
DOJ-OGR-00002309(1).jpg
This document is a Notice of Motion filed on January 25, 2021, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her counsel, is formally requesting the dismissal of Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment, citing a 'Lack of Specificity.' The defense also requests an oral argument regarding this motion (Pretrial Motion #12).
DOJ-OGR-00002300.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on January 25, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. It is a memorandum in support of Maxwell's motion to dismiss either Count One or Count Three of the superseding indictment on the grounds that they are multiplicitous. The document identifies Ghislaine Maxwell as the defendant and lists her legal counsel from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00002300(1).jpg
This is the cover page for a legal memorandum filed on January 25, 2021, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The document is a motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team to dismiss either Count One or Count Three of the superseding indictment on the grounds that they are multiplicitous. The page lists the defendant's legal representation from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00002298.jpg
This document is a Notice of Motion filed on January 25, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). In this filing (Pretrial Motion #8), Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell requests the dismissal of either Count One or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment on the grounds that they are multiplicitous.
DOJ-OGR-00002298(1).jpg
This document is a Notice of Motion (Pretrial Motion #8) filed on January 25, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. In this filing, defendant Ghislaine Maxwell requests the dismissal of either Count One or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment, arguing that they are multiplicitous. The defense also requests oral argument on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00002279(1).jpg
This document is the title page of a legal memorandum filed on January 25, 2021, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It represents Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a severance and separate trial regarding Counts Five and Six of the superseding indictment. The document lists the legal defense teams representing Maxwell, including attorneys from Haddon, Morgan & Foreman P.C., Cohen & Gresser LLP, and the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00002272.jpg
A court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 25, 2021. The order acknowledges receipt of a letter from the Bureau of Prisons requesting the court vacate a previous order (Dkt. No. 116) that granted Maxwell access to a laptop for discovery review on weekends and holidays. The judge allows the defense and government one week to respond to the BOP's request.
DOJ-OGR-00002272(1).jpg
This document is a court order from the Southern District of New York dated January 25, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan notes the receipt of a letter from the Bureau of Prisons requesting the court vacate a previous order that granted Maxwell access to a laptop for reviewing discovery on weekends and holidays. The Judge orders that both the Defendant and the Government may respond to the BOP's request within one week.
DOJ-OGR-00002233.jpg
This document is the first page of an Opinion and Order filed on December 28, 2020, by District Judge Alison J. Nathan in the Southern District of New York. It outlines the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell, including conspiracy to entice and transport minors for illegal sex acts and perjury. The order addresses and seemingly denies a renewed motion for bail, reinforcing the court's previous conclusion from July 2020 that Maxwell poses a significant flight risk.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity