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-00019817.jpg
This document is a legal docket summary from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, chronicling court filings and orders from February 23 to March 18, 2021. The entries detail the procedural battle over Maxwell's third motion for bail and other pretrial motions, including the setting of deadlines, the granting of extensions, and a detailed order from Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the redaction and sealing of sensitive information in court documents. The log illustrates the ongoing legal maneuvering between Maxwell's defense team and the U.S. Government prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00019793.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from Case 21-58, dated March 24, 2021, detailing legal proceedings involving defendant Ghislaine Maxwell from late February to mid-March 2021. It records the filing of Maxwell's third motion for bail, subsequent responses from the U.S. Government (USA), and various letters and motions from both parties regarding pretrial matters and filing deadlines. The document culminates in a detailed order by Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 18, 2021, which addresses disputes over the redaction and sealing of sensitive information in court filings.
DOJ-OGR-00019767.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from Case 21-58, dated March 24, 2021, detailing legal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell. It chronicles filings from late February to mid-March 2021, including Maxwell's third motion for bond, the government's opposition, and various procedural motions and letters. A key event is a March 18, 2021 order by Judge Alison J. Nathan ruling on disputes over the redaction and sealing of sensitive documents, denying the government's request to fully seal an exhibit and ordering the parties to confer on redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00019745.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Case 21-58) dated March 24, 2021. It contains administrative instructions for attorneys and pro se parties regarding updating contact information via PACER/CM/ECF, proper handling of court captions pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP), and appellate designations. It includes a contact phone number (212-857-8577) and a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00019714.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 28, 2020, denying a defendant's application for release. The Court reaffirms its initial decision, concluding the defendant is a flight risk and that no conditions can ensure her appearance at future proceedings, thus warranting continued pre-trial detention. The order also instructs the parties to submit a joint letter regarding potential redactions by December 30, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019696.jpg
This document is a page from a legal docket (Case 21-58, dated Jan 12, 2021) listing specific federal criminal charges and their corresponding US Code citations. The charges include conspiracy to entice minors, coercion or enticement of minors, transportation of minors for criminal sexual activity, and perjury (false declarations before a Grand Jury). The list includes both original counts and superseding counts (denoted with 's').
DOJ-OGR-00019669.jpg
This document, dated October 8, 2020, is the final page of a legal filing (Case 20-3061, Document 94) containing two certifications. Adam Mueller certifies that the brief complies with court rules regarding word count and typeface, while Nicole Simmons certifies that she has filed 'Ms. Maxwell’s Reply Brief' with the court and served it to all counsel of record via the CM/ECF system.
DOJ-OGR-00019666.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has taken contradictory positions by intervening in one case (Doe v. Indyke) but not another (Giuffre v. Maxwell). The author contends the government's justification is weak and ignores its own arguments for strict confidentiality in a related criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, suggesting the government should logically oppose unsealing filings in the Giuffre case but has failed to do so without explanation.
DOJ-OGR-00019661.jpg
This legal document, page 15 of a filing in Case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, presents arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It contends that her immediate appeal falls within the 'collateral order doctrine' and will not delay her criminal trial, contrary to the government's suggestion. The document also puts forward an alternative request for the appellate court to issue a writ of mandamus, arguing that Judge Nathan abused her discretion in a previous ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00019658.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It states that her reliance on a protective order is justified, especially in the context of a grand jury investigation. The filing also asserts that information about how the government bypassed an individual named Martindell is relevant and that Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate this issue before Judge Nathan is essential for her due process and a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019657.jpg
This legal document from October 8, 2020, discusses legal arguments concerning Ms. Maxwell's deposition testimony from a civil case, which forms the basis for criminal charges against her. It references the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell', detailing how Giuffre's attorneys used a civil protective order to counter Maxwell's arguments about privacy and self-incrimination, leading her to testify rather than invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. The document also cites Judge Preska and the case 'Brown v. Maxwell' regarding the court's role in balancing access to legal materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019642.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that Judge Nathan acted within her discretion by denying Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. The filing asserts Maxwell provided no good cause to use criminal discovery materials in a civil case. It contrasts this with the 'Doe case,' which was stayed due to its potential interference with the criminal prosecution, a concern the document claims is not present in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case.
DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a brief or opinion, dated October 2, 2020. It argues against allowing an immediate, or interlocutory, appeal from a person named Maxwell regarding a Protective Order. The text cites several legal precedents (Mohawk, Pappas, Van Cauwenberghe) to support the position that such orders are not appealable until after a final judgment is rendered in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017344.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, discussing the scheduling of a trial's jury deliberation. An unnamed speaker (likely the judge) explains the necessity of the current schedule, citing a significant increase in COVID-19 omicron variant cases in New York City, which poses a risk to trial completion and could lead to a mistrial. Mr. Pagliuca, addressing 'Your Honor,' expresses concern about jurors deliberating through the weekend and New Year's, arguing against retracting a prior commitment from the Court to give them those days off, suggesting deliberation only during the workweek.
DOJ-OGR-00013855.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which a representative for the government discusses trial logistics with the court. The speaker mentions a potential rebuttal expert, affirms the government's readiness to proceed to closing arguments immediately after the defense rests, and raises the need to coordinate with the defense on the mechanics of presenting sealed and public exhibits to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013653.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, featuring the testimony of a witness identified as A. Farmer (Annie). The witness recounts being interviewed by agents in late 2006 or early 2007 about a pair of boots and describes a six-week service trip to Thailand and Vietnam in the summer of 1996. The transcript concludes with an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, requesting that 'Government Exhibit 103' be shown to the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013628.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Annie Farmer. The questioning focuses on a journal entry, presented as Government Exhibit 604, in which Farmer describes a trip to New York with her friend Maria. The entry details a positive experience, including visiting Jeff Epstein's house for champagne and finding him 'down-to-earth' before seeing the play 'Phantom of the Opera'.
DOJ-OGR-00013558.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. The judge and attorneys for the government and defense discuss the scheduling of future trial events, such as the charge conference and closing arguments, which depends on when the defense will rest its case. A defense attorney, Ms. Comey, also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena issued to a Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00010765.jpg
This document page is part of a filled-out juror questionnaire (Juror ID 2) filed on June 29, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror affirmatively answers 'Yes' to three standard legal questions regarding a defendant's right not to testify, the requirement to judge solely on evidence without bias, and the principle that punishment is solely the Court's decision.
DOJ-OGR-00010738.jpg
This document provides the factual background for the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing her conviction for a sex trafficking conspiracy involving Jeffrey Epstein. It argues that a victim named Kate, who testified about being groomed and abused at age seventeen, has the right to speak at the sentencing to provide insight and experience catharsis.
DOJ-OGR-00010703.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from June 25, 2022, argues that the Court should allow victims of Maxwell's sex trafficking conspiracy to speak at her sentencing. The author contends that allowing victim impact statements provides a cathartic benefit, promotes transparency regarding the conspiracy, and is a legally recognized right for victims. The document cites legal precedent to support the claim that a victim's right to speak is important regardless of its effect on the final sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00010578.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against leniency for the defendant, Maxwell, by highlighting her privileged background and a significant pattern of dishonesty. It provides two key examples of her dishonest conduct: lying under oath in a 2016 civil deposition related to a lawsuit by Virginia Roberts, and misleading Pretrial Services about her finances and home ownership in New Hampshire upon her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00010483.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing for a lenient sentence for Ms. Maxwell. It lists numerous mitigating factors for the Court's consideration, including the non-violent nature of offenses from decades ago (1994-2004), her age, lack of prior criminal history, and the extraordinarily harsh conditions of her 22-month pre-sentence detention during the COVID pandemic. The filing also notes that while Probation agrees a downward variance is warranted, it failed to consider the harsh detention conditions in its justification.
DOJ-OGR-00010472.jpg
This legal document details the allegedly poor and dehumanizing conditions of Ms. Maxwell's pre-trial detention. It argues that inadequate nutrition, sleep deprivation, psychological threats, and significant technical difficulties with discovery materials severely weakened her and thwarted her ability to prepare her defense. The document suggests these conditions were intentionally imposed to satisfy various government and legal parties following Epstein's death.
DOJ-OGR-00010437.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, argues that Ms. Maxwell should not receive an aggravating role sentencing enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1. The core argument is that there is no evidence she supervised any other criminal participant in the offenses involving victims like 'Jane' and Annie Farmer. In fact, the document asserts that the trial record shows Ms. Maxwell was directed and managed by Epstein, making her ineligible for the enhancement.
| 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