District of Columbia
LocationRelationship Network
20250728111729830_No.%2024-1073%20Markus%20Moss%20COS.pdf
This document is an Affidavit of Service dated July 28, 2025, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case (No. 24-1073) of Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States of America. It certifies that Robyn Dorsey Willis of Wilson-Epes Printing Co. served three copies of Maxwell's 'Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari' to Solicitor General D. John Sauer at the Department of Justice. Electronic copies were also sent to the DOJ and David Markus (Maxwell's attorney).
20250410114623513_No.%2024-_Markus%20Moss%20PLLC%20COC.pdf
This document is a Certificate of Compliance for a Petition for Writ of Certiorari submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell (Petitioner) against the United States of America. The document certifies the word count of the petition (4,956 words) and is notarized by Aza Salinder Donner in the District of Columbia on April 10, 2025.
EFTA00037140.pdf
This document is a page from a legal retainer agreement (Bates EFTA00037140) outlining terms between a law firm and a client. It covers the firm's authorization to practice law in various states (NY, MI, PA, CA, FL, DC), a disclosure of liability insurance, strict protocols regarding media communication, warnings about the discoverability of social media content, and consent for the use of cloud services and email. The document warns the client against destroying digital evidence.
EFTA00029606.pdf
This document is a 'White Collar Law360' email newsletter dated July 14, 2021, summarizing various legal news stories, court rulings, and job moves. It mentions Jeffrey Epstein in a brief 'People' section note about Cooley LLP hiring a former New York federal prosecutor who previously led prosecutions against Epstein and Michael Cohen. The newsletter also covers the conviction of Paul Manafort's banker, Stephen Calk, and allegations against the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
EFTA00015219.pdf
This document is a legal declaration by Michael G. Seidel, an FBI official, detailing his role and the FBI's handling of a FOIA request from James Robertson and Radar Online LLC concerning Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines the FBI's process for responding to the request, including the number of pages processed and withheld, and provides background on Epstein's criminal history and death.
DOJ-OGR-00000256.tif
This document is an Affidavit of Service from Wilson-Epes Printing Co., Inc., certifying that on July 28, 2025, three copies of the 'REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI' in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (AKA Sealed Defendant 1) vs. United States of America were served. The service was made to D. John Sauer, Solicitor General for the U.S. Department of Justice, and electronically to two email addresses. The affidavit was sworn to and subscribed before Notary Public Aza Salinder Donner.
DOJ-OGR-00000033.tif
This document is a Certificate of Compliance for a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the Supreme Court of the United States by Ghislaine Maxwell (AKA Sealed Defendant 1) against the United States of America. It certifies that the document contains 4,956 words, as required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), and was sworn to and subscribed by Notary Public Aza Salinder Donner on April 10, 2025.
DOJ-OGR-00023285.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal report, specifically 'Chapter Three, Part Two: Applicable Standards,' detailing statutory provisions related to the rights of crime victims. It outlines the rights afforded to crime victims under the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771) and VRRA, and defines 'crime victim' as a person harmed by a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.
DOJ-OGR-00008562.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the first element the government must prove against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity. The instruction defines key legal terms for the jury, including "interstate commerce" and the standard for acting "knowingly," explaining that intent can be inferred from conduct and circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00008478.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 17, 2021, is a jury instruction from a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details Instruction No. 15, which explains the first element the government must prove against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for Count Two: "Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity." The document defines key legal terms for the jury, including "interstate commerce" and the standard for acting "knowingly."
DOJ-OGR-00021089.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) arguing that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein should be interpreted under Eleventh Circuit law rather than Second Circuit law. The text asserts that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, the NPA's promise by 'the United States' not to prosecute Epstein's potential co-conspirators (specifically including the Defendant) is binding on all U.S. Attorneys' Offices and any ambiguity must be resolved against the government.
DOJ-OGR-00021057.jpg
This document is page 'ix' from a legal filing, specifically Document 59 in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous U.S. court cases with their legal citations and corresponding page references within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1926 to 2017 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
DOJ-OGR-00020650.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the Southern District of New York for Case 22-1426, detailing legal filings from March 24 to March 29, 2021, related to Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP appearing for victims, the prosecution (USA) and defense counsel filing letters with Judge Alison J. Nathan, and the filing of a superseding indictment against Maxwell. The docket also records a motion to appear pro hac vice and a related $200 filing fee.
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-00002281.jpg
This document is page 'ii' (3 of 19) of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' section listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, including United States v. Halper and United States v. Burke. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00002281'.
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00030526.jpg
This memo, dated January 11, 2006, is from attorney Michael Salnick to Daliah Weiss regarding an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Salnick confirms the rescheduling of a meeting with his client, Janusz Banasiak, for January 17, 2006, at Weiss's office. He also references a prior conversation where Weiss indicated she would issue a subpoena to Banasiak and requests a faxed copy of it before their meeting.
DOJ-OGR-00021458.jpg
This legal document from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation concludes that prosecutors in the Epstein case did not commit professional misconduct by failing to notify victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The OPR's reasoning is that in 2007, when the non-prosecution agreement was signed, the Department of Justice's interpretation was that CVRA rights only attached after federal charges were filed, a standard which was not met. Although finding no misconduct, the report notes that the lack of consultation with victims reflected poorly on the Department and contradicted its mission.
DOJ-OGR-00021449.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (labeled SA-273 and appearing to be part of an appendix) in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It outlines 'Chapter Three, Part Two: Applicable Standards' and specifically quotes the text of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The text details the eight specific rights afforded to crime victims, the Department of Justice's obligation to accord those rights, and the legal definition of a 'crime victim.'
DOJ-OGR-00021391.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the enumerated rights of crime victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically in the context of the federal Epstein investigation. It defines a "crime victim" and lists eight specific rights, including the right to be protected, notified of proceedings, and heard in court. The document also provides legislative background, noting the CVRA was a compromise measure presented by Senators following hearings on a victims' rights amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 82) filed on October 2, 2020. The text argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to use a writ of mandamus to modify a Protective Order, citing that such writs are 'extraordinary remedies' reserved for exceptional circumstances like judicial abuse of power. It references legal precedents (Cheney, Glotzer) to support the argument that pretrial discovery orders are generally not reviewable on direct appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00031669.jpg
This document is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request letter dated August 14, 2006, from attorney Aileen Josephs to Florida State Attorney Barry Krischer. Josephs requests the complete file related to the criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein. A handwritten note on the document, dated November 8, 2007, indicates that over a year had passed and counsel had not received a response to the request.
DOJ-OGR-00031666.jpg
This document is a letter dated January 8, 2008, from attorney Aileen Josephs to attorney Lanna Belohlavek concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case (2005CF009454A). Josephs expresses frustration over a pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from 2006 and raises concerns about a lack of transparency, alleging that hearing dates are being changed "orally" without public record. She insists on being notified of all future hearing dates to ensure government transparency and prevent "sub rosa dealings."
DOJ-OGR-00031661.jpg
This document is a letter dated January 8, 2008, from attorney Aileen Josephs to attorney Lanna Belohlavek concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case (2005CF009454A). Josephs expresses concern that hearing dates are being changed 'orally' and without public record, despite the case being an 'active investigation,' which undermines transparency. She references a pending Freedom of Information request from 2006 and formally requests to be notified of all future hearing dates related to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017218.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Charge) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines instruction No. 15 regarding Count Two, specifically the charge of enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text defines the legal elements the government must prove, including interstate travel and intent, specifically relating to a victim referred to as 'Jane' during the period of 1994 to 1997.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity