MARKUS/MOSS
OrganizationRelationship Network
20250509132036202_24-1073%20Affidavit.pdf
This document is an Affidavit of Service filed in the Supreme Court case (No. 24-1073) of Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. Rina Danielson certifies that on May 9, 2025, she served the 'Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner' to attorneys for both Maxwell (David Oscar Markus) and the United States (Solicitor General D. John Sauer). The service was performed via Priority Mail and email, with physical copies also sent to the Court via Federal Express.
EFTA00029695.pdf
An email thread from May 2021 regarding the legal proceedings of Ghislaine Maxwell. Her attorney, David Oscar Markus, notifies prosecutors of his intent to file a renewed bond motion in the Second Circuit following a ruling on conditions of confinement. The prosecutors (internal email) discuss confusion over this strategy, noting the previous ruling was about sleeping conditions, not bail.
EFTA00018026.pdf
This document is an email thread from July 30, 2021, relating to the case United States v. Maxwell (20-Cr-330). Attorney David Oscar Markus emailed Judge Nathan's chambers to submit a responsive letter regarding a government filing from June 30, 2021, explaining that he lacked filing privileges in the SDNY. Judge Nathan's chambers replied with an attached order.
EFTA00015825.pdf
This document is an email chain between David Oscar Markus, representing Ghislaine Maxwell, and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding her appeal of a bail denial. The correspondence, dating from March 25 to April 10, 2021, covers Markus's request for unredacted docket entries, discussions on expediting the appeal process, and the filing of an unredacted Exhibit F under seal. The US Attorney confirms the existence of a protective order and agrees not to oppose expediting consideration of the appeal, provided the 10-day response window remains intact.
DOJ-OGR-00015093.jpg
This legal document, page 7 of a court filing, argues against the disclosure of Ghislaine Maxwell's grand jury materials. The author contends that the current 'immense public interest' in the Epstein and Maxwell cases is mere public curiosity about an ongoing case and does not meet the standard of historical importance that justified disclosure in past cases like the Hiss espionage case or the 'In re Biaggi' case. The document distinguishes the current request from precedents where materials were released decades later, after witnesses had died, or when the subject of the testimony themselves requested the release.
DOJ-OGR-00015092.jpg
This legal document discusses precedents for unsealing grand jury testimony of historical significance. It cites the case of David Greenglass, whose testimony in the Rosenberg trial was released after his death, and the case of Alger Hiss, where grand jury transcripts from an espionage investigation were unsealed after fifty years due to public interest.
DOJ-OGR-00015091.jpg
This legal document argues against the release of grand jury transcripts in the pending case of Maxwell. The author contends that secrecy is necessary to protect still-living witnesses, including active law enforcement personnel and alleged victims. The document also refutes the government's cited precedent, the Rosenberg case, arguing it is inapplicable because it involved a decades-old, concluded case, unlike Maxwell's ongoing one.
DOJ-OGR-00015090.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) arguing against the unsealing of grand jury materials. The defense argues that because the grand jury convened only five years prior and Ghislaine Maxwell is still actively litigating her case (including a pending Supreme Court petition), releasing the materials would cause irrevocable reputational harm and taint the legal process. The filing explicitly notes that while Epstein is dead, Maxwell is alive, distinguishing this case from others where secrecy is no longer needed due to the death of principal parties.
DOJ-OGR-00015087.jpg
This legal document is a response filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defense opposes the government's motion to unseal grand jury transcripts, arguing that since Maxwell is alive and actively litigating her case (which is pending before the Supreme Court), releasing the transcripts would violate her due process rights. The defense also claims they cannot take an informed position as the Court has denied their request to review the materials themselves.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity