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-00021454.jpg
This document is page 252 of a larger legal filing (Exhibit SA-278), originating from the DOJ (DOJ-OGR-00021454) and filed in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It outlines Department of Justice policies regarding 'Consultation With a Government Attorney,' specifically detailing the rights of victims to confer with prosecutors about major case decisions like plea agreements and dismissals, while explicitly stating that this does not create an attorney-client relationship. It lists factors responsible officials must consider when deciding whether to notify victims of plea negotiations, such as public safety and the number of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021168.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the U.S. Government on April 26, 2023, in Case 22-1426. The Government requests a 30-day extension to file its response brief to a party named Maxwell, citing the need to prepare for an upcoming trial in a separate case (United States v. Wynder & Brown) starting May 22, 2023. The document notes that Maxwell's counsel, Diana Samson, does not oppose the extension, provided Maxwell also receives an extension to file her reply brief.
DOJ-OGR-00021142.jpg
This legal document argues that Maxwell's conviction on Count Four (substantive transportation) was likely improper. The argument posits that the jury convicted her based on arranging a return flight for 'Jane' from New Mexico after the alleged sexual abuse had already occurred, and the Court's refusal to provide a clarifying instruction allowed this. This potential error also casts doubt on the validity of the conviction for a related conspiracy charge, Count Three.
DOJ-OGR-00021136.jpg
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, discusses the conviction of Maxwell on Count Four, which was based on Jane's testimony about sexual activity with Epstein in New Mexico. It argues that the Court's failure to address the jury's misunderstanding, as revealed by a 'Jury Note' concerning the transportation count, warrants vacating Maxwell's convictions on Counts Three and Four and granting a new trial. The document highlights the distinction between the original indictment and the basis for conviction, implicitly linking the 'defendant' in the jury note to Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019605.jpg
This document, dated September 28, 2020, is a legal argument asserting that a writ of mandamus is necessary to address inconsistent decisions by judges in the Southern District of New York concerning Ms. Maxwell's motion to consolidate. It concludes by recommending that the Court deny the government's motion to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing that deposition material will become moot once unsealed.
DOJ-OGR-00019600.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues that an appeal will become moot if Ms. Maxwell is not immediately allowed to share information with Judge Preska for an unsealing process. The filing distinguishes the current situation from the precedent set in the 'Pappas' case, arguing that the nature of the protective order in that case was different. The core issue is the timing of information sharing and its effect on the legal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019599.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, related to Case 20-3061. The author argues that the current case, involving Ms. Maxwell, is distinct from the legal precedent set in the 'Caparros' case. The key distinction made is that while the defendant in Caparros sought to make documents public, Ms. Maxwell seeks to provide documents to judicial officers, such as Judge Preska, under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00019587.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in which Ms. Maxwell requests permission from the court to be excused from publicly filing a redacted version of 'Appendix Volume 2'. The justification is that the appendix and related briefs contain confidential information shielded by a criminal protective order. The filing connects this request to two ongoing appeals she has filed: one against an order by Judge Nathan and another against an order by Judge Preska in the related case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, with a consolidated oral argument scheduled for October 13.
DOJ-OGR-00019572.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues for the continued sealing of certain court documents, with redactions, to protect Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial from pretrial publicity. The filing references the government's own public statements about its ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's associates as evidence of the high-profile nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019560.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling denying a Defendant's request to modify a protective order in a criminal case. The Court found the Defendant's arguments for disclosing materials to judicial officers in other civil proceedings to be vague and lacking good cause. The information the Defendant sought to disclose, related to a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, was deemed already publicly available.
DOJ-OGR-00019548.jpg
This is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020. The order grants the Government's proposed protective order concerning discovery materials, finding the Defense's arguments against the restrictions to be unwarranted and unprecedented. The ruling resolves docket item number 29 in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019544.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 30, 2020, details the post-case responsibilities of the Defense Counsel. It mandates that all discovery materials provided by the Government must be returned or securely destroyed within 30 days after the case's final conclusion and all appeal periods have passed. The document also stipulates that the Government and Defense Counsel must meet before any hearings or trials to agree on how evidence will be presented.
DOJ-OGR-00019543.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal order, likely a protective order, filed on July 30, 2020. It details strict rules for the Defendant and their legal team regarding the handling of confidential discovery materials, prohibiting dissemination, copying, and public filing without explicit authorization from the Government or the Court. The order specifies that materials must be reviewed in the presence of counsel and may be inspected under the protection of law enforcement.
DOJ-OGR-00019538.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on July 30, 2020, for case 1:20-gp-00330-AJN. The order prohibits the defense team (including the Defendant, Counsel, Staff, Experts, and Witnesses) from publicly disclosing or filing the identities of victims or witnesses referenced in the Discovery process. An exception is made for individuals who have already spoken on the public record, or if the disclosure is authorized in writing by the Government or by an order from the Court, in which case the filing must be made under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00019536.jpg
This page is part of a legal order filed on July 30, 2020, that governs the handling of discovery materials in a court case. It specifies which third parties—such as defense staff, experts, and potential witnesses—are permitted to receive these materials from the defendant's counsel for trial preparation. The document mandates that any such 'Designated Person' must first sign a copy of the order, formally agreeing to its terms, before being granted access to the materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019532.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court order (likely a Protective Order) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). It outlines the strict protocols for the Defense Counsel regarding the handling, return, or destruction of 'Discovery' and 'Confidential Information' provided by the Government. It stipulates that materials must be destroyed or returned within 30 days of the finalization of the case (including appeals) and mandates that both parties meet to discuss evidence presentation before trials.
DOJ-OGR-00019528.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on July 28, 2020, details the strict protocols for handling Confidential Information in a criminal case. It stipulates that such information can only be used for the defense of the current action, must be kept secure, and outlines specific rules for how the defendant can access it in hard copy (only with counsel present) and electronically (facilitated by the Bureau of Prisons). The Government's designation of information as confidential is binding unless overridden by a court order.
DOJ-OGR-00019525.jpg
This document is page 4 of a Protective Order from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 28, 2020. It establishes strict rules for the handling of discovery materials by the defendant, her counsel, and the entire defense team. The order mandates encryption for disseminated discovery and explicitly prohibits all parties, including the Government, from posting any discovery information on the internet, social media, or any other public medium.
DOJ-OGR-00019524.jpg
This document is a page from a legal order filed on July 28, 2020, detailing who is permitted to access discovery materials in a criminal case. It specifies that defense staff, experts, court-authorized individuals, and potential witnesses can receive these materials under strict conditions. The order requires any designated person receiving the materials to first sign a copy, agreeing to be bound by its terms, to ensure confidentiality during trial preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00019521.jpg
This legal document, dated July 28, 2020, is a filing from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The prosecution argues against a defendant's motion to impose restrictions on the government and third parties, labeling the request as unprecedented and without legal basis. The government urges the court to deny the defendant's motion and instead implement the government's own proposed protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00019511.jpg
This page is from a legal document filed on July 27, 2020, outlining the rules for handling "Highly Confidential Information" in a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It specifies that such information may include sexualized images and details the legal process for Defense Counsel to challenge this designation with the Government and the Court. The document also strictly limits the use of this information to the defense of the criminal action and prohibits its further dissemination.
DOJ-OGR-00019508.jpg
This document is page 7 (labeled page 6 internally) of a court filing from July 2, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the protocols for handling 'Confidential Information' during discovery, specifically defining what constitutes confidential material and establishing protections for the personal identification of victims and witnesses. It also sets the procedure for Defense Counsel to challenge confidential designations.
DOJ-OGR-00019470.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket report for Case 20-3061, detailing filings and orders between August 20, 2020, and September 8, 2020. It records various legal actions including sealed documents, letter motions regarding protective orders and redactions, and memorandum opinions denying defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's requests regarding discovery and confinement conditions. The document also notes the filing of a Notice of Appeal by Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019468.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket concerning the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically detailing a Memorandum Opinion & Order dated July 30, 2020. The order resolves disputes regarding a protective order, siding with the Government to restrict Ms. Maxwell from publicly referencing alleged victims not identified in the litigation and rejecting her request to restrict potential witnesses' use of discovery materials. The court emphasizes the need to balance privacy interests of victims and witnesses against the defendant's rights and public interest.
DOJ-OGR-00019464.jpg
This document is a court docket excerpt from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing an order for an arraignment and bail hearing scheduled for July 14, 2020. The order specifies that the proceeding will be conducted remotely via video/teleconference due to COVID-19, outlines strict courthouse entry protocols, and addresses victim notification rights and Speedy Trial Act exclusions.
| 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