Southern District
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00015422.jpg
This document is Page 4 of a FedEx invoice dated December 13, 2002 (Invoice Number 4-487-30791). It is a 'FedEx Ground Reference Chart' that provides definitions for service codes, zone locations (including Hawaii, Alaska, and Canada), and other charge codes (such as fuel surcharges and hazardous materials), rather than detailing specific transactions.
DOJ-OGR-00015416.jpg
This document is page 3 of 5 of a FedEx invoice (Number 7-153-78512) dated December 12, 2002. It provides a summary of charges for one shipment, totaling $64.41 specifically for 'Duties, Tax, Customs, Other Fees'. The document is marked 'CONFIDENTIAL' and bears DOJ and SDNY Bates stamps.
DOJ-OGR-00015347.jpg
This is page 3 of a 14-page FedEx invoice (Invoice #4-447-80862) dated November 18, 2002. It provides a shipment summary by payment type, detailing costs for 25 shipments paid as 'Shipper' and 1 shipment paid as 'Recipient', totaling $700.29 charged to Account Number 1144-2081-6. The document is marked CONFIDENTIAL and bears SDNY and DOJ Bates stamps, indicating its inclusion in legal discovery proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00015312.jpg
This document is page 3 of 8 of a FedEx invoice dated November 4, 2002. It provides a summary of shipment costs by payment type for Account Number 1144-2081-6. The summary lists 11 shipments paid as 'Shipper' totaling $362.67 and 2 shipments paid as 'Recipient' totaling $551.82, for a grand total of 13 shipments and $914.49. The document is marked Confidential and bears DOJ/SDNY Bates stamps.
DOJ-OGR-00015307.jpg
This document is a 'Find Report' from Shoppers Travel, Inc. generated on April 27, 2016. It lists financial transactions (invoices) from May 19, 1999, to July 30, 1999. The ledger tracks travel-related expenses for Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and numerous associates including Emma Tayler, Julian Bicknell, and Martyn Rix. The document shows a running balance that reaches over $1.4 million by July 1999.
DOJ-OGR-00015298.jpg
This document is a 'Shoppers Travel, Inc.' transaction report covering the period from August 6, 2001, to December 31, 2001. It lists numerous invoices detailing expenses for various individuals, most notably Ghislaine Maxwell, who accrued significantly higher expenses (over $16,000) compared to others listed. The list includes known Epstein associates such as Sarah Kellen, Larry Visoski (pilot), and scientist Marvin Minsky, alongside several redacted entries labeled as DOJ Redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00015297.jpg
This document is a 'Find Report' of all transactions from Shoppers Travel, Inc. generated on April 27, 2016. It lists invoice payments made between December 2001 and May 2002. The list includes payments for travel expenses to numerous individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein, including Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Darren Indyke, and Lawrence Visoski.
DOJ-OGR-00002360.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues that the government's prior representations about its investigation were false. It details how attorneys from Boies Schiller, including David Boies himself, approached the government in 2016 to urge an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell for sex trafficking and perjury, providing evidence from abused clients. A quote from David Boies highlights his firm's conviction that they could prove a "massive sex trafficking ring" was in operation.
DOJ-OGR-00002360(3).jpg
This legal document page, filed on February 4, 2021, argues that the government was aware of information beyond public filings when it began its investigation. It cites a February 29, 2016 meeting where attorneys from Boies Schiller urged AUSA Amanda Kramer to investigate Epstein and Maxwell, and a later approach in summer 2016 by David Boies himself asking the government to consider perjury charges against Maxwell. The document includes a quote from Boies stating they had evidence of a "massive sex trafficking ring."
DOJ-OGR-00002360(2).jpg
This legal document argues that the government's representations about when it began its investigation were false. It provides evidence that attorneys from the law firm Boies Schiller, including David Boies himself, approached the government in 2016 to urge an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell for sex trafficking and perjury, citing evidence from abused clients. A quote from David Boies details the extensive evidence they claimed to possess about a "massive sex trafficking ring."
DOJ-OGR-00002360(1).jpg
This legal document argues that the government's claims about when its investigation began were false. It provides evidence that attorneys from Boies Schiller met with AUSA Amanda Kramer on February 29, 2016, to urge an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell. Furthermore, it states that David Boies approached the government in the summer of 2016 to ask about charging Maxwell with perjury, quoting Boies on the extensive evidence they had of a "massive sex trafficking ring."
DOJ-OGR-00002306.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal motion filed on January 25, 2021, in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense argues that Count One and Count Three of the indictment are 'multiplicitous' and violate the Fifth Amendment because they allege identical overt acts, geographic scope (NY, FL, NM, UK), and objectives. The filing requests the Court dismiss one of the counts.
DOJ-OGR-00021842.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that critiques the reasoning of a prior court decision, 'Annabi'. The author argues that 'Annabi' departed from the established legal doctrine that a plea agreement with a specific U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) only binds that office, not the entire U.S. government, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text cites numerous other cases in its footnotes to support this traditional, more limited interpretation of such agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00019460.jpg
This document is a page from the Criminal Docket for Case # 1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1, USA v. Maxwell, filed on June 29, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It lists Ghislaine Maxwell as the defendant (also noted as Sealed Defendant 1) and details her legal defense team, including attorneys Christian R. Everdell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, and Mark Stewart Cohen, along with their contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00019318.jpg
This legal document, dated May 18, 2020, is a filing arguing against defendant Maxwell's request to stay discovery in a civil case. The author contends that Maxwell has failed to justify the stay based on a parallel criminal investigation and that a potential claims resolution program involving co-defendant Epstein's Estate does not require litigation to be paused. The filing cites court transcripts and case law to support the position that discovery should proceed, as it may even be necessary to facilitate settlement.
DOJ-OGR-00019266.jpg
This document is page 3 of a criminal docket for the case USA v. Maxwell (Case #: 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It lists the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, her defense attorneys, and pending conspiracy counts related to enticing minors to engage in illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00019264.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Electronic Filing' from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, dated September 9, 2020, concerning the case USA v. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It confirms that the certified indexed record regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's Notice of Appeal was transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The notice lists the attorneys for both the defense and the prosecution (DOJ) who received electronic notification of this filing.
DOJ-OGR-00019248.jpg
This document is a page from the criminal docket of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of USA v. Maxwell. It lists the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, her legal representation team, and the pending conspiracy counts against her.
DOJ-OGR-00019771.jpg
This document is a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated March 24, 2021. It confirms that the certified indexed record regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal was transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The notice lists the attorneys for both the defense and the prosecution who received electronic notification of this action.
DOJ-OGR-00019718.jpg
This document is page 3 of a U.S. District Court criminal docket sheet for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Maxwell), filed on June 29, 2020, and assigned to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It details the defense team representing Ghislaine Maxwell (also listed as Sealed Defendant 1), specifically listing five attorneys from three different law firms (Cohen & Gresser, Haddon Morgan and Foreman, and Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim) along with their contact information. The document carries a Bates stamp of DOJ-OGR-00019718.
DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg
This is page 15 (filed page 47) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues against the concept of backdating in tolling agreements and asserts there is no proof the defendant knew specific rules or discussed transactions. He argues that a 'government partisan' on the jury constitutes a serious error rather than a harmless one, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland.
DOJ-OGR-00009493.jpg
This document is page 15 (marked A-5917) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues that there was no proof the defendant knew specific transactions were wrong and claims a 'government partisan' juror was biased against the defendant, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in *Strickland* regarding harmless error. The Judge then invites prosecutor Ms. Davis to respond.
DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 295) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents a legal argument by the prosecution distinguishing the current case from the precedent set in *Annabi*, *Abbamonte*, and *Alessi* regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause and plea agreements. The prosecution argues that Maxwell cannot claim Double Jeopardy protections because she was not previously prosecuted for the offenses listed in the S2 Indictment, and disputes her interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00020077.jpg
This page from a government filing (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant is a flight risk. It highlights her time hiding in New Hampshire, her foreign ties to the UK and France, and the difficulty of extradition. A footnote reveals that in 2018, despite being married, both the defendant and her spouse listed their status as 'single' on bank trust account forms, which the government cites as evidence of a lack of candor.
DOJ-OGR-00005718.jpg
This document is Page 6 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) arguing against the admissibility of a specific document compilation. The text details how former Epstein employee Alfredo Rodriguez attempted to sell 97 pages of evidence to lawyer Brad Edwards in 2009, leading to an FBI sting operation where Rodriguez sold the documents to an undercover officer for $50,000. The filing argues these documents are unauthenticated hearsay, lack relevance to the current indictment, and should be excluded.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity