Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror candidate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cynthia Hopkins
|
Employee |
1
|
1 |
EFTA00016941.pdf
An email thread between investigators dated December 31, 2019, discussing the pursuit of Ghislaine Maxwell. Investigators discovered an account (likely Amazon) via USAA statements and requested a subpoena and Non-Disclosure Order (NDO) to track her packages and determine her physical location. The email reveals Maxwell was using the alias 'Ghislaine Borgerson' on the credit card used for these transactions.
EFTA00016304.pdf
This document is an email chain from September 2020 between attorney Jack Scarola and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY). They discuss the inability to locate the official transcript and video of a deposition from December 4, 2009, related to a case against Jeffrey Epstein. In the absence of the official record, Scarola provides contemporaneous notes taken by a paralegal, noting that they describe 'troubled young women' susceptible to Epstein's 'recruitment, grooming and victimization.'
EFTA00016259.pdf
An email from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim regarding urgent issues with legal mail delivery to Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. Sternheim provides USPS tracking evidence showing four items waiting for pickup in Brooklyn and threatens court action if the MDC does not retrieve them. The document includes screenshots of the tracking information and a signature block for Isabel Maxwell, a paralegal.
EFTA00013660.pdf
An email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney dated April 21, 2008, regarding the urgency of indicting Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecutor presses for a decision from the DOJ that day, citing a need to file the indictment before a 3-week vacation in May. The email also discusses the selection of another Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) to assist with the case, mentioning candidates in Fort Pierce and Miami.
EFTA00010189.pdf
An internal government email dated December 2, 2020, addressed to 'Chiefs' submitting a draft legal letter for review. The draft responds to Ghislaine Maxwell's requests for redactions and an 'in camera' proceeding, following an order from Judge Nathan. The email includes several attachments relating to sealing motions and bail motions.
EFTA00009890.pdf
This document is an email thread between defense and government counsel in the US v Maxwell case, dated April 19-20, 2021. The correspondence concerns scheduling a conferral call and negotiating specific redactions for several 'Reply Briefs' and exhibits to be filed on the public docket. Key issues include protecting the identities of accusers, third parties, and AUSAs, as well as handling confidential exhibits under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00000243.tif
This document is a Table of Contents for a legal brief or report. It outlines sections discussing the reasons for granting a petition, including arguments about a split among circuits regarding promises made by U.S. Attorney's offices, criticism of a Second Circuit decision, and the case's suitability for resolving a recurring legal question. The document also includes page numbers for each section.
DOJ-OGR-00000141.tif
This legal document discusses perjury charges against Maxwell, concluding that they are legally tenable but should be severed and tried separately from Mann Act counts to avoid undue prejudice. It references legal precedents and argues that Maxwell's statements in a civil case about sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations could have led to the discovery of other evidence or influenced the factfinder, thus supporting the perjury charges.
DOJ-OGR-00000140.tif
This document is a legal excerpt, likely from a court order or memorandum, discussing motions filed by 'Maxwell.' The Court addresses Maxwell's arguments for dismissing charges, stating her motion is premature and that determining truth, falsity, and materiality of statements are typically jury functions. The document cites several legal precedents to support the Court's position that Maxwell's statements could be considered material and that her arguments for dismissal are not sufficient at this stage.
DOJ-OGR-00000106.tif
This document outlines standard conditions of supervision, likely for a probationer or individual on supervised release. It details requirements such as DNA collection, compliance with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, participation in domestic violence programs, and reporting procedures to the probation office and court.
DOJ-OGR-00030304.tif
This document is the cover page for the deposition of Jane Doe #4 in the case of Jane Doe No.2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, on September 16, 2009. The deposition was reported by Cynthia Hopkins of Prose Court Reporting, and the document also lists several related case numbers.
DOJ-OGR-00030273.tif
This document is a court filing from September 17, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, specifically a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein for sanctions and to compel the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. The motion details that Jane Doe No. 4's deposition was noticed for September 16, 2009, but her counsel indicated she could not appear before 1:00 p.m., and the deposition location was moved to Prose Court Reporting in West Palm Beach, FL.
DOJ-OGR-00018218.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Parkinson identifies Government Exhibits 201-222 as fair and accurate photos of the exterior of a residence at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared around October 20, 2005. Following this identification, Ms. Comey offers the exhibits into evidence, to which opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, has no objection.
DOJ-OGR-00015150.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against unsealing the grand jury transcripts from the Maxwell case. It asserts that nearly all the information presented to the grand juries is already public record from Maxwell's trial, and the remaining non-public information is minimal and inconsequential. The document concludes that a member of the public familiar with the trial would learn nothing new from the unsealed materials, which do not identify new individuals, clients, or methods related to Epstein's or Maxwell's crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00015112.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of victims in the Epstein/Maxwell case, respectfully requesting the Court to implement specific protective measures before unsealing grand jury materials. The requests include requiring the government to confer with victims' counsel, judicial in-camera review of the materials, and pre-release review by victims' counsel to propose redactions. The filing argues these safeguards are essential to protect the survivors' safety, privacy, and dignity from further trauma, especially given recent events concerning Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00015110.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330, argues against the unsealing of materials related to the convicted individual, Maxwell. It outlines the victims' concerns, citing Maxwell's recent transfer to a lower-security prison, her access to a public platform through individuals like Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the government's failure to consult victims, and a growing fear of clemency. The filing asserts that these developments are causing re-traumatization for the survivors and disregard their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
DOJ-OGR-00015066.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the disclosure of grand jury materials. It outlines legal factors for consideration, noting that Defendant Epstein is deceased and cannot respond, while Defendant Maxwell intends to. The document emphasizes the strong public interest in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as in the related investigations by the Department of Justice and FBI, as a justification for the disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00014839.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on August 22, 2022, in which a judge explains the reasoning behind the sentence for Ms. Maxwell. The judge states the sentence must reflect the gravity of her offense, her pivotal role, and the harm caused, while also serving as a deterrent to others. The judge explicitly notes that Ms. Maxwell's wealth and high profile are not factors in the punishment, but rather the principle that no one is above the law.
DOJ-OGR-00008625.jpg
This document is a specific page (page 87 of 167) from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It serves as a Table of Contents for Jury Instructions, listing instructions 49 through 59, covering topics such as the defendant's right not to testify, evidence from searches, electronic communications, and jury conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008623.jpg
This document is page 2 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00008623) of a Table of Contents for Jury Instructions filed on December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines instructions for the jury regarding their role, the burden of proof, and specific charges including 'Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity' (Count Two) and 'Transportation of an Individual Under the Age of 17 to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity' (Count Four). The document details the structure of the legal charge, breaking down specific crimes into their constituent elements for jury consideration.
DOJ-OGR-00008619.jpg
This document is a legal instruction (No. 59) for a jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the procedures for jury deliberation, including the election of a foreperson, the formal process for communicating with the court via written notes, and rules regarding the use of personal notes taken during the trial. The instructions emphasize that the foreperson acts as a communicator without extra authority and that all jurors' recollections of evidence are paramount.
DOJ-OGR-00008549.jpg
This document is a legal instruction (Instruction No. 4) from a court case, filed on December 18, 2021. The judge directs the jury that they must decide the case based solely on their own recollection of the evidence, not on the arguments, objections, or statements made by the attorneys for the Government or the Defendant. The instruction explicitly states that statements from counsel and the court are not evidence and that the jury's memory of the facts is the ultimate authority.
DOJ-OGR-00008545.jpg
This document is page 7 of a 167-page legal filing (Document 563) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It is a table of contents for a set of jury instructions, listing topics from Instruction No. 42 to No. 59, which cover evidence, witness credibility, defendant's rights, and jury conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008461.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It serves as a table of contents for a series of jury instructions (numbers 54-59), covering topics such as witnesses, evidence, jury deliberations, and communications with the court.
DOJ-OGR-00008459.jpg
This document is the table of contents for jury instructions in the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It outlines the structure of the instructions, covering the roles of the court and jury, general legal principles like the presumption of innocence, and specific charges including conspiracy, enticement, and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity.
| 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