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-00001418.jpg
This legal document is an appeal to a court regarding the pretrial detention conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing argues that her constitutional right to prepare for trial is being violated by conditions equivalent to solitary confinement, including sleep deprivation, intrusive searches, and poor sanitation. The document urges the court to intervene, suggesting her temporary release on bond as a remedy.
DOJ-OGR-00001416.jpg
This legal document excerpt details the defense's arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding her treatment at MDC Brooklyn. The defense claims the government and court are unfairly handling evidence, specifically a videotape of an incident that would allegedly disprove statements made by MDC staff. The document also highlights the defense's frustration with the court's dismissal of their complaints about jail conditions, such as guards flashing a light in Ms. Maxwell's cell every 15 minutes.
DOJ-OGR-00001413.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the government misrepresented the nature of its treatment of inmate Ms. Maxwell. The filing claims the government initially told the court that flashlight checks every 15 minutes were a routine procedure by the Bureau of Prisons, but later admitted in a letter that these checks were targeted only at Ms. Maxwell. The document asserts this special treatment is unjustified and an attempt by the government to mislead the court.
DOJ-OGR-00001409.jpg
This legal document is a renewed motion for bond on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that her pre-trial confinement conditions are grueling, citing over 318 days in solitary with sleep deprivation caused by flashlight checks every 15 minutes. The motion refutes the government's justifications for these measures—such as suicide risk or the high-profile nature of the case—as nonsensical and unsupported by evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001395.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 19, 2021, by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues for a continuance (delay) of the trial for their client, Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the government's proposed trial schedule is unrealistic, especially given a recent second superseding indictment, and that proceeding would violate Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights. The filing also notes the prejudicial impact of Ms. Maxwell's continued detention and ongoing media coverage, and mentions an upcoming bail appeal hearing in the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00001394.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, requests a 90-day continuance for her trial, originally set for July 12, 2021. The defense argues that the government's recent disclosure of 226 witnesses necessitates more time for investigation and preparation. The request is made reluctantly, acknowledging it will prolong Ms. Maxwell's 'miserable and punishing detention'.
DOJ-OGR-00001391.jpg
This page from a legal filing by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim argues that recent voluminous discovery materials, including witness interviews, contain exculpatory information for Ms. Maxwell that requires significant time to investigate. The defense disputes the government's claim that no additional time is needed, asserting that millions of pages from Epstein's devices, previously irrelevant, are now pertinent due to the expanded scope of the superseding indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00001346.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, addresses the court regarding the stringent and individualized detention conditions of a detainee, Ms. Maxwell. The filing notes that a previous letter of complaint received no meaningful response and suggests that the facility's warden, Warden Tellez, should be directed to provide a first-hand explanation to the court for these specialized conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00001328.jpg
This legal document excerpt details Judge Nathan's reasoning for denying bail to the defendant, Maxwell. The judge found a significant discrepancy between the $3.5 million in assets Maxwell declared in July 2020 and a later estimate of her and her spouse's net worth at $22.5 million. This, along with an insufficient bail proposal, led the judge to conclude Maxwell demonstrated a lack of candor and remained a significant flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001279.jpg
This legal document is a court order from March 22, 2021, reaffirming the decision to detain a defendant. The Court concludes that the Government has shown the defendant is a flight risk and that no proposed conditions can reasonably assure her appearance. The Court's assessment of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), including the presumption of detention and the weight of the evidence, remains unchanged despite the defendant's new arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00001253.jpg
This document is a formal letter from the French Ministry of Justice to the U.S. Department of Justice, dated March 9, 2021. It clarifies French legal provisions (Articles 696 et sq., 696-2, and 694-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) regarding the removal of individuals. The letter emphasizes that removal is not granted for individuals who possess French citizenship at the time of the offense, making their French nationality an "insuperable obstacle" to removal.
DOJ-OGR-00001250.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's proposed bail conditions, asserting that her financial proposal is vague and would leave her with ample resources (over $3.5 million plus future income) to flee prosecution. The filing contends that the proposed financial monitorship creates a conflict of interest and that the defendant's pending pretrial motions do not weaken the strength of the government's case. The author urges the Court to reject the defendant's proposal, concluding she remains a significant flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001249.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should reject the defendant's proposed monitorship condition for her release from detention. The Government contends the proposal is insufficient because the defendant has a history of lacking candor about her finances, possesses significant international ties, and would retain control over substantial unrestrained assets, such as a $2 million townhouse in London. The filing emphasizes that the defendant remains a flight risk, a concern heightened by the previously established difficulty and length of any potential extradition process.
DOJ-OGR-00001246.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's third motion for release on bail. The author, likely the prosecution (Government), contends that the defendant remains an extreme flight risk due to strong evidence, substantial resources, and foreign ties to a non-extraditing country. The document dismisses the defendant's new proposals—renouncing foreign citizenship and placing some assets under monitorship—as insufficient to ensure their appearance in court and urges the motion to be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00001214.jpg
This legal document is a page from a motion arguing for a defendant's release on bail. The defendant proposes a new, comprehensive $28.5 million bail package, secured by property and cash, and co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family. The proposed conditions also include home confinement with GPS monitoring, custody by a family member, and security services, all intended to mitigate the court's previous concerns about her being a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001211.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's renewed motion for release on bail. The court justifies the denial by citing the seriousness of the charges (facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse), strong government evidence, the defendant's substantial financial resources, foreign ties to a non-extradition country, and a lack of candor about her finances, concluding she is a flight risk. The document outlines the case's background, including the indictment on June 29, 2020, her arrest on July 2, 2020, and the denial of her first bail motion on July 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001194.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell for bail. It refutes the government's claims by stating that her relationship with her spouse is a strong tie to the country, and that discussions of divorce were a protective measure, not indicative of a weak bond. The document also asserts that Ms. Maxwell has been fully transparent about her and her spouse's finances, accusing the government of baselessly claiming she was deceptive rather than challenging the accuracy of the financial reports provided.
DOJ-OGR-00001193.jpg
This document is a defense filing arguing that the government has not met its burden in opposing bail for Ms. Maxwell. It asserts that her spouse and friends have come forward to support her bond, demonstrating strong ties to the U.S., contrary to the government's claims. It also addresses footnotes regarding the government's failure to scrutinize accusers and the defense's ongoing legal challenges to the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00001190.jpg
This document outlines a preliminary statement arguing for the release of Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell on strict bail conditions. It highlights her substantial bail package, including a bond signed by her spouse and support from seven sureties, while contesting the government's opposition as being based on her association with Jeffrey Epstein rather than legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00001187.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (likely a reply brief in support of a bail motion) filed on December 23, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government's case is weak (relying on only three witnesses), that Maxwell has substantial ties to the US (including a spouse whose name is redacted), that she has disclosed all finances for bond, and that the COVID surge at the MDC justifies her release. It also refutes the claim that she is a flight risk or that extradition from France or the UK would be refused.
DOJ-OGR-00001173.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court's analysis distinguishing the current defendant's case from several cited legal precedents regarding pre-trial detention. The court contrasts cases where defendants were released (Khashoggi, Bodmer) with cases where they were detained (Boustani, Ho, Epstein), focusing on factors that justify detention such as flight risk, substantial financial resources, dual citizenship, and ties to foreign countries without extradition treaties like Brazil.
DOJ-OGR-00001170.jpg
This document is page 28 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on December 18, 2020. The Government argues against granting the defendant's bail package, asserting that she has transferred the majority of her wealth to her husband over the last five years, meaning any bond posted by him would essentially be her own money, reducing the 'moral suasion' preventing flight. The document cites legal precedent (United States v. Boustani) rejecting a 'two-tiered bail system' that favors wealthy defendants who can afford private security.
DOJ-OGR-00001168.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The prosecution contends that the defendant is a significant flight risk because a new financial report reveals she has approximately $22 million in assets, far more than previously disclosed, including a $2 million London townhouse and over $4 million in unrestrained funds. The Government further argues that the bond is effectively worthless because two proposed co-signers are UK residents, against whom the bond could not be realistically recovered if the defendant were to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00001163.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is invalid. It cites two main points: first, the precedent of France refusing to extradite its own citizens, as seen in the case of Peterson, a dual US-French national; and second, the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires that any consent to extradition be evaluated by a judge in real-time with legal counsel present, rendering any prior 'anticipatory waiver' meaningless.
DOJ-OGR-00001128.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk due to her extreme recognizability and the constant media scrutiny she faces. To further assure the Court of her intent to face charges, she offers to sign irrevocable waivers of her right to contest extradition in both the United Kingdom and France. The filing cites the 1999 case 'United States v. Cirillo' as a legal precedent for using such waivers as a condition for release.
| 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