Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror candidate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cynthia Hopkins
|
Employee |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00002211(1).jpg
This document is a preliminary statement arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell on bail, detailing a proposed bond package secured by her and her spouse's net worth and backed by seven additional sureties. The defense argues that Maxwell is being held to an unfair standard due to her association with Jeffrey Epstein and contends that the government's evidence is weaker than represented.
DOJ-OGR-00002208.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 103) dated December 23, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The filing argues for Maxwell's release on bail, citing her ties to the U.S. (including a redacted spouse), the pledging of all assets, the weakness of the government's case relying on only three witnesses, and health risks due to a COVID surge at the MDC detention center.
DOJ-OGR-00002208(1).jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 103) in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 23, 2020. The filing outlines arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell for bail, countering the government's case by highlighting her substantial ties to the U.S. (including her spouse), her financial disclosures, and the unlikelihood of extradition refusal from France or the UK, while also citing a COVID surge at MDC as further justification.
DOJ-OGR-00002199(1).jpg
This is the second page of a legal document filed on December 18, 2020, in the case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. In it, Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq., concludes an argument to the Court, urging them to keep Ghislaine Maxwell incarcerated until her trial to prevent further harm to children and to ensure she faces justice.
DOJ-OGR-00002193.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing for the continued detention of the defendant, asserting she is an extreme flight risk. The Government cites her foreign citizenship in a non-extraditing country, substantial international ties, financial resources, and the seriousness of the charges involving minor victims. The filing also refutes the defense's complaints about the conditions of confinement, stating the defendant has ample time and access to communicate with her counsel and review discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00002189.jpg
This legal document argues against granting the defendant's proposed bail package by asserting she is a flight risk. The central claim is that the assets securing the bond originated from the defendant herself, who allegedly funneled her wealth to her husband over five years, thereby reducing his personal financial stake and incentive to prevent her from fleeing. The argument is supported by citing the defendant's financial resources, foreign ties, and legal precedent from the Second Circuit regarding bail conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00002189(1).jpg
This legal document argues against granting a defendant's proposed bail package. The central claim is that the defendant has funneled the majority of her wealth to her husband over the past five years, and these are the same assets that would be used for the bail bond. Therefore, the husband would not be losing his own money if the defendant were to flee, diminishing the bond's effectiveness as a deterrent. The argument is supported by citing a Second Circuit ruling against bail systems that create a two-tiered system for wealthy versus non-wealthy defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00002187.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The Government contends the defendant is a flight risk due to substantial, previously underreported assets of approximately $22 million, including a $2 million London townhouse and millions in unrestrained funds. The argument is further supported by the fact that two proposed co-signers are UK residents, which would make the bond effectively worthless and unrecoverable if the defendant were to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00002187(1).jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The government contends that the defendant, who possesses approximately $22 million in assets including a $2 million London townhouse, is a significant flight risk and has previously been deceptive about her finances. The filing also asserts that the proposed bail package is inadequate, particularly because two co-signers are UK residents, making it practically impossible to recover the bond amount if the defendant were to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00002182.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable. It supports this claim by referencing France's strict policy against extraditing its own citizens to the U.S. and by citing the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires a judge to evaluate any such waiver in person with the defendant represented by counsel, rendering anticipatory waivers meaningless.
DOJ-OGR-00002182(1).jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against the defendant's bail release by highlighting the risk of non-extradition. The Government asserts that France does not extradite its citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and that any anticipatory waiver of extradition to the UK provided by the defendant is unenforceable under the UK Extradition Act of 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002177.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is a flight risk. The argument is based on her significant foreign ties, including citizenship in three countries, foreign property, and bank accounts, as well as her lack of strong ties to the U.S. and inconsistent statements made to Pretrial Services regarding her marital status.
DOJ-OGR-00002177(1).jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The prosecution contends that the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her extensive foreign ties, including citizenship in three countries, foreign property, and bank accounts. The filing also highlights her weak ties to the United States and points out inconsistencies in her statements, such as previously claiming to be divorcing the same husband she now cites as a reason to remain in the country.
DOJ-OGR-00002173(1).jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The prosecution asserts that the defendant is a significant flight risk due to the potential for a 35-year prison sentence and that the three victims in the case unanimously wish for her to remain in detention. The filing emphasizes the strength of the government's evidence, which includes testimony from victims alleging the defendant groomed them for sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002172.jpg
This legal document is a court's discussion and rejection of a defendant's "Renewed Bail Application." The Court argues that the defense is reiterating previously rejected arguments and that new financial information presented does not alter the original conclusion that the defendant is a flight risk. The document reaffirms the decision for detention, citing the egregious nature of the charges, which involve the sexual abuse of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00002167.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 18, 2020, summarizes the defense's arguments from a bail hearing held on July 14, 2020. The defense urged the court to release the defendant, who was arrested by the FBI on July 2, 2020, citing family ties in the U.S. and offering to hire private security. The defense also addressed the government's concerns about the defendant's finances and willingness to provide more information to secure a bail bond.
DOJ-OGR-00002012.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, argues for the approval of a proposed $28.5 million bail package for defendant Ms. Maxwell. It contends that this package is more than sufficient to ensure her appearance in court by comparing it to the less restrictive bail conditions of other high-profile defendants with significant financial means and foreign citizenships. A table is provided to illustrate these precedents, detailing bond amounts and conditions for defendants such as Madoff, Khashoggi, and others.
DOJ-OGR-00002008.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the defense for Ms. Maxwell, arguing that the discovery evidence provided by the government fails to corroborate the allegations against her. The defense claims that despite the government's initial assertions at a bail hearing, the vast majority of the documents produced are from a time period well after the alleged conspiracy (1994-1997) and contain no meaningful corroboration.
DOJ-OGR-00001987.jpg
This legal document is part of a motion arguing for bail for Ms. Maxwell. It refutes the court's initial reasons for denying bail by listing the court's findings—such as lack of family ties, unclear finances, and being a flight risk due to her French citizenship—and claims that new evidence demonstrates these concerns are unfounded. The document asserts that this new evidence, which could not be presented at the initial hearing, proves that reasonable bail conditions can be set to ensure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001986.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the reconsideration of a bail decision for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (United States v. Lee, Bradshaw, Rowe, and Petrov) to establish that the Court has the inherent authority to reopen a bail hearing, especially when new evidence is presented. The filing asserts that Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial new information, including over 2.7 million pages of discovery from the government, which was unavailable at her initial hearing and raises questions about the strength of the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00001974.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, dated December 14, 2020. The filing argues for the reconsideration of a court's bail decision concerning Ms. Maxwell, proposing she be granted bail under strict conditions. The arguments outlined include her deep family ties, her devotion to her spouse, financial transparency, and claims that she was not hiding from authorities but rather protecting herself from media and physical threats.
DOJ-OGR-00001971.jpg
This document is a court order dated December 14, 2020, issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order directs the Defendant to docket redacted documents and exhibits, affirming that the redactions are appropriately tailored to protect individual privacy interests. The Court's decision is based on balancing competing considerations against the common law presumption of access, citing legal precedents like *United States v. Amodeo* and *Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.*.
DOJ-OGR-00001833.jpg
This document is a page from a government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, outlining the charges in the indictment and discussing the production of discovery materials. The government argues for the delayed disclosure of certain sensitive materials related to Epstein victims not testifying at trial to protect ongoing investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00030437.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, dated July 26, 2017. It outlines two counts: Count II, 'Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress,' brought by plaintiff Jane Doe and her parents (Father and Stepmother), and Count III, 'Loss of Parental Consortium,' brought by Jane Doe's Father. The plaintiffs allege Epstein's conduct was intentional and outrageous, causing severe emotional distress and damages for which they seek compensatory and punitive relief.
DOJ-OGR-00022138.jpg
This is the signature page of a legal agreement dated May 20, 2021, signed by defendant Tova Noel and her attorney, Jason Foy. In the document, Noel admits to willfully falsifying records at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on August 9 and 10, 2019. She also waives her right to a speedy trial and acknowledges that she understands and voluntarily accepts the terms of the agreement, which is subject to court approval.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-09-17 | Received | Burman, Critton, ... | Court | $138.80 | Invoice for cancelled deposition services (Appe... | View |
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity