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 |
010-03.pdf
This is a court order from Judge Kenneth A. Marra denying motions by Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 to join an existing lawsuit filed by Jane Doe 1 and 2 against the US Government regarding violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act in the Epstein case. The judge ruled that adding new parties was unnecessary as their claims were duplicative and they could instead serve as witnesses. Significantly, the Judge sua sponte ordered the striking of 'lurid details' and allegations made by Jane Doe 3 regarding being trafficked to high-profile non-parties (including politicians and world leaders), deeming them impertinent to the specific legal claim against the government. Consequently, Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene to strike these same allegations was denied as moot.
EFTA00038051.pdf
This document is an Arrest Warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 2, 2019, for Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 19 CRIM 490). The warrant commands law enforcement to arrest Epstein based on an indictment charging him with sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking of minors under Title 18 of the United States Code. It is signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses.
EFTA00037954.pdf
An arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 29, 2020, for Ghislaine Maxwell. The warrant commands law enforcement to arrest Maxwell based on an indictment charging her with conspiracy to entice minors, enticement of a minor, conspiracy to transport minors, transportation of a minor, and perjury. The document is signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith in White Plains, NY.
EFTA00032766.pdf
This document is an Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 20, 2021. The Judge denies Maxwell's request for a renewed bail hearing, ruling that the new S2 Superseding Indictment (which adds charges regarding a Minor Victim-4 between 2001-2004) only strengthens the Government's case regarding flight risk. The Judge also orders defense counsel to clarify their request for a trial adjournment, specifically asking for a precise duration (90 days vs. January 2022) by April 22, 2021, noting that the severance of perjury counts may shorten the necessary trial preparation.
EFTA00032667.pdf
This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The order addresses the sealing and redaction of twelve reply briefs filed by the Defendant; it mandates the immediate filing of unredacted briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12, and sets a deadline of April 20, 2021, for justifications regarding redactions in the remaining briefs. The Judge emphasizes that a protective order alone is insufficient to justify sealing judicial documents.
EFTA00032483.pdf
A court argument calendar for October 13, 2020, at the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse in New York. The schedule lists two cases involving Ghislaine Maxwell: one civil case involving Julie Brown and the Miami Herald (misspelled 'Hearld'), and one case involving the United States of America. The arguments are to be heard by a panel of judges consisting of Cabranes, Pooler, and Raggi.
EFTA00032387.pdf
An email from Michael C. Miller of Steptoe & Johnson LLP dated August 20, 2019 (10 days after Epstein's death), regarding the case 'United States of America v. Epstein'. Miller asks the recipient (whose name is redacted) to sign and return a stipulation to withdraw an appeal in the 2nd Circuit Court so that it can be filed. The email includes Reid Weingarten and Morgan Lucas in the CC field.
EFTA00031718.pdf
This document is an automatic email notification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, dated August 21, 2019. It confirms the filing of a 'FRAP 42 STIPULATION, with prejudice' in the case of United States of America v. Epstein (Case No. 19-2221), which typically indicates a voluntary dismissal of an appeal (likely following Epstein's death earlier that month). The notice lists attorneys Martin G. Weinberg and Reid Weingarten as recipients, along with several redacted Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
EFTA00031717.pdf
This document is an automated email notification from the Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, dated August 21, 2019. It confirms the filing of a 'FRAP 42 STIPULATION, with prejudice' in the case of United States of America v. Epstein (Case No. 19-2221). The notice lists attorneys Martin G. Weinberg and Reid Weingarten as recipients, along with several redacted Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
EFTA00031685.pdf
Court Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan dated May 3, 2021, addressing an incident on April 24, 2021, at the MDC where Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers were accused of violating BOP rules during a visit. The Judge denied the defense's request for the Court to order the turnover of video tapes (though they must be preserved) and ordered Government counsel to confer with MDC to ensure Maxwell maintains access to confidential attorney-client communications.
EFTA00031684.pdf
A court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated May 3, 2021. The order addresses a letter received from a non-party's counsel requesting anonymity for their client, an alleged victim of a sexual crime. The Judge orders the letter to be filed under seal to protect the individual's privacy interests.
EFTA00031606.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of New York dated April 29, 2021, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses an incident on April 24, 2021, where MDC staff seized Maxwell's legal materials. Judge Nathan orders the MDC legal counsel to provide an inventory of seized items to the defense and to file a representation with the Court regarding potential duplication of materials and steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of attorney-client communications.
EFTA00031566.pdf
This document is a Property Summary Report dated July 19, 2019, prepared by London & Thurber, LLC regarding the property at 9 East 71st Street, New York, NY. The report identifies the owner as Maple, Inc. (a U.S. Virgin Islands Corp) and notes a 'Lis Pendens' (pending lawsuit) filed by the United States of America against Jeffrey Epstein on July 11, 2019 (Case No. 19CR490). The property has an estimated market value of over $75 million.
EFTA00031263.pdf
This document is a Memorandum of Law filed by the United States Government opposing Defendant Michael Thomas's motion to compel discovery in the criminal case regarding the falsification of records connected to the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The Government argues that it has already met its discovery obligations under Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio, and that the additional materials Thomas seeks—including OIG drafts, BOP records, and evidence of selective prosecution—are either not in the prosecution team's possession, are privileged, or are irrelevant to a valid legal defense, serving instead only to support an improper jury nullification strategy.
EFTA00030910.pdf
Court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 3, 2020, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court approves the defendant's proposed redactions for letters dated November 25 and 30 regarding a renewed bail motion, citing the privacy interests of individuals mentioned in the letters. The court denies the request for an in camera conference but allows written submissions with tailored redactions and orders the parties to schedule briefing for the renewed bail motion.
EFTA00030581.pdf
This document is a Notice of Docket Activity from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, dated October 8, 2020. It confirms the filing of an Oral Argument Statement (LR 34.1(a)) in the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Case No. 20-3061) by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney.
EFTA00029971.pdf
Memorandum Opinion and Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan dated August 25, 2020, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's requests to immediately disclose the identities of three alleged victims and to be released into the general prison population. The court ruled the request for victim identities was premature as discovery had just begun, and found that the Bureau of Prisons was already providing sufficient access to legal materials (13 hours a day). The court ordered the Government to provide status updates on Maxwell's confinement conditions every 90 days.
EFTA00029877.pdf
This document is an affidavit filed on July 27, 2020, by Christian R. Everdell, attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. It certifies that the defense conferred with the prosecution regarding a protective order but remains in dispute over two issues: restrictions on government witnesses regarding discovery materials and the defense's ability to name victims who have already gone public. The document includes redactions of the names of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys involved.
EFTA00029717.pdf
An email thread from August 20, 2019 (ten days after Jeffrey Epstein's death) between attorney Michael Miller of Steptoe & Johnson LLP and a redacted individual. The correspondence concerns the signing and filing of a 'Stipulation to Withdraw Appeal' in the case United States of America v. Epstein U.S. in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (Docket No. 19-2221), likely closing legal proceedings following the defendant's death.
EFTA00029354.pdf
This document is a Court Order from Judge Alison J. Nathan dated May 14, 2021, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's request to modify the frequency of flashlight safety checks during the night at the Metropolitan Detention Center. The defense argued the checks occurred every 15 minutes and disrupted sleep, while the Government maintained the checks were necessary for safety due to Maxwell being housed alone and the high-profile nature of the case. The Court ruled the request unsubstantiated but urged the MDC to consider ways to reduce sleep disruption for pre-trial detainees.
EFTA00028985.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on July 11, 2019, by Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys requesting permission to file his supplemental financial disclosure under seal. The defense argues that under the Bail Reform Act, such financial information should remain confidential to prevent widespread media dissemination given the high-profile nature of the case. The document lists Epstein's legal team, including Reid Weingarten, Martin G. Weinberg, and Marc Allan Fernich.
EFTA00028974.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting a motion to dismiss counts 1-4 of the superseding indictment. The defense argues that the indictment lacks specificity regarding names, dates, and details of the allegations, preventing Maxwell from preparing an adequate defense. The filing criticizes the government for using vague categories like 'Minor Victims' and 'multiple minor girls' without clarification and cites legal precedents to argue that the lack of specificity violates due process.
EFTA00028968.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed on March 15, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in the Southern District of New York. The defense argues that Counts 1 and 3 of the Superseding Indictment are multiplicitous (charging the same crime twice based on identical facts) and requests the Court order the government to elect one count to prosecute and dismiss the other prior to trial to avoid jury prejudice. The filing contends that the government has failed to prove the existence of two distinct conspiracies.
EFTA00028903.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting a motion to dismiss counts one through four of her indictment as time-barred. The defense argues that the 2003 Amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which extended the statute of limitations, cannot be applied retroactively because Congress explicitly rejected a retroactivity provision. Additionally, the defense contends that the Mann Act offenses charged (enticement to travel and transportation of a minor) do not 'necessarily entail' the sexual abuse of a child, and thus the extended statute of limitations under § 3283 does not apply.
EFTA00028706.pdf
A court order filed on June 2, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order establishes a detailed schedule for pre-trial disclosures, including deadlines for victim identification, witness lists, Jencks Act materials, and motions in limine, spanning from September to November 2021.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity