Judge Sweet
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Chief Judge McMahon
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROSSMILLER
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Judicial |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Judicial assignment | Judge Preska was assigned to preside over the remand in the 'Brown' case following the death of J... | N/A | View |
| 2019-02-28 | N/A | Government submitted ex parte and sealed letters to courts supporting application to modify prote... | Court | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | Trial proceedings: Judge Sweet finished reading the charge. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2019-02-05 | N/A | Government submission of an application and proposed order regarding unsealing documents in the G... | Court (implied) | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Death | Judge Sweet passed away before ruling on the Government's application. | N/A | View |
| 2017-01-01 | Legal proceeding | A civil defamation case, which had generated over 900 docket entries and had many unresolved moti... | N/A | View |
| 2016-06-20 | N/A | Opinion issued by Judge Sweet in Giuffre v. Maxwell (Exhibit 6). | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2016-04-21 | N/A | Court Hearing regarding Pro Hac Vice motions and discovery disputes. | SDNY Courtroom | View |
| 2016-03-08 | N/A | Judge Sweet denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss. | Court | View |
| 2016-02-29 | N/A | Judge Sweet denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss in the defamation case. | Court | View |
013.pdf
This document is a reply filed by Bradley J. Edwards in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served on him by Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. Edwards argues that the subpoena imposes an undue burden on him as a non-party and opposing counsel, seeking information that is already in Maxwell's possession, privileged, irrelevant, or available from other sources. The brief details the history of related litigation, including the CVRA case and a defamation suit against Alan Dershowitz, to support the argument that the subpoena is harassing and unnecessary.
EFTA00032757.pdf
This document consists of an internal email chain within the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) dated June 15-16, 2021, discussing the upcoming suppression hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. The correspondence addresses legal strategy, including Maxwell's filing of 12 separate memos of law to evade page limits, and clarifies the identity of Stan Pottinger as a lawyer from Boies Schiller who represented a plaintiff in a related civil action. The emails also reference previous proceedings before Judge Sweet and Judge McMahon.
EFTA00032725.pdf
This document involves an internal email chain between U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial in June 2021. The prosecutors discuss legal strategy concerning a suppression hearing, noting that Maxwell's defense team filed 12 separate Memos of Law (MOLs) to bypass page limits. The correspondence also references past proceedings involving Judge Sweet and Judge McMahon, and requests access to original applications and transcripts.
EFTA00032513.pdf
An email thread from February 21, 2019, involving an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The correspondents discuss the status of an ongoing trial presided over by Judge Sweet. Notably, one participant offers to send a 'draft Epstein thing' to the other as a distraction while they wait in the trial room.
EFTA00029464.pdf
This document is an email dated February 5, 2019, sent by a Government representative to the Chambers of Judge Sweet regarding the case 'v. Maxwell, et al., 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)'. The email transmits an attachment related to an unsealing application and order, which the Government requests be filed under seal. The sender and recipient email addresses are redacted.
EFTA00029100.pdf
This legal filing is a Reply Memorandum by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing for the suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges based on government misconduct. The defense asserts that prosecutors misled Chief Judge McMahon about the extent of their prior coordination with civil attorneys (Boies Schiller Flexner) to obtain a grand jury subpoena, thereby circumventing a civil protective order. The document details a specific meeting on February 29, 2016, where civil attorneys 'pitched' the prosecution of Maxwell and provided documents, including flight records (though the specific flight data is not listed in this text), which the prosecution later failed to disclose to the judge.
EFTA00026781.pdf
This document is an email chain from 2016 (forwarded in 2018) discussing legal proceedings and media coverage regarding Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Key contents include a link to a Page Six article about Epstein's relationships with young women, and a discussion of legal attachments such as a complaint against Maxwell (noting Judge Sweet denied her motion to dismiss) and filings in a CVRA case. A lead attorney is added to the correspondence following a meeting.
EFTA00020540.pdf
This document is an internal email thread between staff at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) dated October 17, 2018. The correspondence circulates a legal opinion by Judge Sweet regarding the 'Right of Public Access Judicial Document' in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, which the sender noted reading about in the New York Law Journal (NYLJ).
EFTA00015303.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed on January 25, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in the Southern District of New York. The motion seeks to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena issued to a third party (name redacted) and to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment. The defense argues that the subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment due to overbreadth and lack of a warrant, violated the 'Martindell' doctrine regarding the sanctity of protective orders in civil litigation, and infringed upon Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination regarding her 2016 civil deposition testimony.
EFTA00015277.pdf
This document is an email chain from June 2021 between US Attorneys in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. They discuss preparation for a suppression hearing, exchange legal documents including transcripts from Judge Sweet and Magistrate Judge Netburn, and identify Stan Pottinger as a lawyer from Boies Schiller who represented a civil plaintiff. The prosecutors also express frustration with the defense filing 12 separate memos of law (MOLs) to evade page limits.
EFTA00014499.pdf
An email dated January 3, 2019, from Stan Pottinger of Edwards Pottinger LLC regarding a confidentiality order in a legal case against Maxwell presided over by Judge Sweet. The email forwards three PDF attachments identified as a Sealed Opinion, a Protective Order, and a notice of Case Manager Assignment, with the body text noting that 'These documents are public.'
EFTA00014496.pdf
This document contains an email chain between a partner at Edwards Pottinger LLC and likely federal authorities (SDNY/FBI) from late 2018/early 2019. The correspondence outlines preparations for a new investigation or prosecution, including requests for victim lists beyond those in the original Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Crucially, it provides a comprehensive list of lawyers who represented Jeffrey Epstein, his pilots, staff, and Ghislaine Maxwell, noting that Bruce Reinhart (now a magistrate judge) represented the pilots and staff.
EFTA00009877.pdf
An email chain between legal professionals discussing ongoing litigation involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The correspondence references a meeting held on February 29, 2016, where documents including a defamation complaint against Maxwell, CVRA case filings, and a 'redacted 302' (FBI interview) were shared. A later email in the chain from March 8, 2016, highlights a NY Post article about Epstein's continued relationships with young women.
DOJ-OGR-00002294.jpg
This legal document argues against including perjury counts in Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial. The author contends that doing so would force the relitigation of a complex and unresolved civil defamation case (dismissed in 2017), making the current trial unnecessarily long and confusing. Furthermore, it raises the issue that including these counts could force Ms. Maxwell's long-term lawyers to testify, potentially leading to their disqualification from the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019409.jpg
This legal document from September 24, 2020, discusses judicial proceedings involving Ms. Maxwell. It notes that Judge Preska took over a case from the late Judge Sweet and describes how arguments by Ms. Maxwell to keep materials sealed were dismissed. The document also mentions a specific instance where Ms. Maxwell's motion to stay discovery in a related case, 'Farmer v. Indyke', was opposed by attorneys representing both Ms. Giuffre and plaintiff Annie Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00003098.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss a perjury charge. The prosecution contends that the defendant's false statements in a deposition for the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil suit were material, as truthful answers could have corroborated claims that the defendant and Epstein recruited Giuffre and could have led to other victims or witnesses. The filing asserts that the issue of materiality is a question for the jury and should not be decided by the court at this stage.
DOJ-OGR-00003029.jpg
This legal document page, filed on April 16, 2021, describes court proceedings from March 2019. Following the death of Judge Sweet, Chief Judge McMahon took over the case and held a hearing on March 26, 2019, to question the Government about its application and why the law firm Boies Schiller had not sought to be relieved from a protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00004907.jpg
This document is a page from a sealed court transcript filed on July 2, 2021, as part of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The transcript captures a dialogue between the Court and attorney Mr. Rossmiller regarding the definition of confidential materials involving plaintiff Virginia Roberts and a subpoena issued to the law firm Boies Schiller. The discussion focuses on privilege, privacy interests, and a proposed order submitted to Judge Sweet.
DOJ-OGR-00004901.jpg
This court transcript details a discussion about a protective order that the presiding judge believes is on 'precarious footing'. The order was granted years prior by Judge Sweet, who is now deceased, making it difficult to ascertain the original reasoning. The judge and Mr. Rossmiller debate whether the Second Circuit would or should handle an inquiry involving 150 litigation documents to resolve the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00004900.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 2, 2021, detailing a conversation between Mr. Rossmiller and a judge regarding a protective order over sealed documents from a settled libel lawsuit. The judge expresses reluctance to uphold the order, citing the Second Circuit's apparent criticism of Judge Sweet for failing to conduct a detailed inquiry into the confidentiality of each document. The core issue is whether the sealed litigation materials should remain confidential.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019299.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal letter from Andrew G. Celli, Jr. representing Professor Dershowitz. The letter accuses opposing counsel of selectively leaking false charges to the Washington Post while withholding exculpatory emails from a redacted witness who allegedly tried to sell a story involving 'two presidential candidates, a former president, and one of the world’s leading entrepreneurs' to the New York Post. Celli demands a stipulation to unseal the witness's emails to allow for full public disclosure.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019298.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter from Alan Dershowitz's legal team (Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP) complaining that the plaintiff (Giuffre) leaked selective, confidential information to the Washington Post to damage Dershowitz. The letter attempts to discredit a specific redacted witness (Ms. [Redacted]) by citing her 2016 emails which contained outlandish conspiracy theories involving the CIA, 'the Russians,' and 'Special Agents Forces Men.' The document details the witness's claims of possessing compromising sexual evidence against high-profile figures including Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Richard Branson, and Donald Trump.
Proposed Order
Submission of a proposed order to Judge Sweet.
RE: [Redacted] v. Maxwell, et al., 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
Request to Judge Sweet's chambers to file an attached application and proposed order under seal.
Unsealing of Ms. [Redacted] deposition
Requesting permission for public disclosure of emails if the deposition is unsealed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity