| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Origin |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Resident |
1
|
1 |
This legal document is a motion from the Government arguing that the court should preclude the defense from calling case agents to testify about matters the Government deems irrelevant. These topics include the thoroughness, scope, timeline, and charging decisions of prior investigations in Florida and New York. The Government contends that this testimony is not relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence and asks the court to require the defense to make an offer of proof before introducing such arguments or evidence.
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing against the defense's attempts to introduce certain evidence. The prosecution contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Epstein is irrelevant to the current case and that the fact the defendant was not charged by the USAO-SDFL after a Florida investigation is not admissible to challenge the credibility of Minor Victim-4. The document suggests that introducing these elements would mislead the jury and open the door to rebuttal from the government about the circumstances of the prior investigation.
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against the defense's motion to introduce evidence regarding the origins of the New York investigation. The prosecution contends that the defense's claims—that the investigation was improperly motivated by a prior non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, his death, and public pressure—are irrelevant to the defendant's guilt and would create a prejudicial 'circus' at trial.
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues for the admissibility of evidence regarding minor victims' consent. It distinguishes the actual charges of "sexual activity" and "sex trafficking" from "sexual abuse," which is not charged. The document provides context by comparing the varying legal definitions of "minor" and ages of consent across different jurisdictions, including New York, Florida, the United Kingdom, France, and New Mexico.
This legal document is a filing by the defense in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing against a government motion to limit questioning about prior investigations in Florida and New York. The defense asserts that questioning case agents on the scope, timeline, and steps of these investigations is relevant and admissible evidence. The defense distinguishes its request from seeking information on 'investigative techniques' to justify its line of questioning.
This legal filing argues for the admissibility of evidence regarding the USAO-SDFL's 2008 decision not to charge Ghislaine Maxwell. It highlights inconsistencies in a redacted witness's testimony between 2007 and 2020, specifically noting that the witness only accused Maxwell of sexual contact (fondling breasts) 13 years later during an interview with the New York FBI. The document lists various evidentiary exhibits including message pad slips, phone records, and FedEx records.
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a defense argument for the admissibility of evidence concerning the history of investigations into Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that explaining the timeline of the Florida and New York investigations, Epstein's 2019 indictment and death, and Maxwell's subsequent 2020 indictment is crucial for her defense and not confusing for a jury. The document refutes the government's concerns, arguing the narrative is straightforward and necessary to explain why Maxwell was not charged alongside Epstein initially.
This page is from a legal filing (Document 382) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It presents a legal argument citing case law (Kyles v. Whitley, Bowen v. Maynard) to support the admissibility of evidence regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), prior charging decisions, and the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues these elements are necessary to challenge the thoroughness and good faith of the government's investigation.
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 354) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on October 15, 2021. The text argues that the Court has the authority to set an earlier deadline for the defense to file motions under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (the rape shield law), citing various precedents to support the Government's request for an earlier briefing schedule. The document references multiple other cases (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to demonstrate that courts frequently set Rule 412 deadlines more than 14 days prior to trial.
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, summarizes the allegations against Ms. Maxwell from an indictment. It details four counts related to violations of the Mann Act between 1994 and 1997, including substantive violations and conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein and others. The allegations specify that Maxwell enticed and caused 'Accuser-1' to travel from Florida to New York for illegal sex acts with Epstein.
This document is a preliminary statement from a legal motion filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell on February 4, 2021. The defense requests that the Court strike allegations related to 'Accuser-3' from the indictment, arguing that the alleged conduct occurred in England where Accuser-3 was above the age of consent and did not involve travel. The motion claims the government is improperly using these allegations to bolster its case regarding Mann Act violations involving 'Accuser-1' and Jeffrey Epstein.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a court filing dated February 4, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists legal precedents (cases), statutes, and rules relied upon in the main document. Key statutes cited include 18 U.S.C. § 2421, 2422, and 2423, which relate to the transportation of individuals for illegal sexual activity (Mann Act) and sexual exploitation of minors.
This document is the cover page for Ghislaine Maxwell's Appendix to her Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release, filed on May 17, 2021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It lists the legal counsel representing Maxwell (Leah S. Saffian and David Oscar Markus) and references the underlying case in the Southern District of New York.
This legal document, filed on April 9, 2021, details the Government's investigative actions concerning "Minor Victim-4" and the "defendant." It outlines a series of interviews with Minor Victim-4, conducted via video and in-person between summer 2020 and January 2021, alongside further investigative steps. The document asserts that a superseding indictment (S2 Indictment) was timely presented to a grand jury in late March, refuting the defense's claims of intentional delay or that the indictment acknowledges the strength of pretrial motions.
This page from a legal filing outlines conspiracy charges against Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein involving the enticement of minors for sexual activity in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. It specifically details 'Overt Acts' committed between 1994 and 1997 involving a 'Minor Victim-1' in New York and Florida.
This legal document alleges that between approximately 2001 and 2004, MAXWELL met and groomed a 14-year-old, identified as Minor Victim-4, for sexual abuse by Epstein. The grooming and abuse occurred at Epstein's Palm Beach Residence, where Minor Victim-4 was paid hundreds of dollars in cash after providing nude massages to Epstein, during which he engaged in sexual acts with her. MAXWELL is described as facilitating this by scheduling appointments, normalizing the abuse, and sometimes paying the victim.
This legal document, part of a court filing, describes the systematic sexual abuse of victims by Jeffrey Epstein at his Palm Beach Residence. It alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell, acting as an employee or associate, would greet victims and facilitate their encounters with Epstein, which involved sexual acts and subsequent cash payments. The document explicitly states that Maxwell facilitated Epstein's access to minor victims, knowing his sexual preference for underage girls.
This document is page 17 of a court order filed on March 24, 2021, in the case United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC). The text details the Court's rejection of the defendant's (Schulte) challenges regarding jury selection, specifically concerning the 'fair cross-section' requirement of the Sixth Amendment and an 'Equal Protection' challenge under the Fifth Amendment. The Court dismisses arguments regarding the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American jurors, citing a lack of discriminatory intent and noting that a technical glitch in the White Plains master wheel actually increased minority representation rather than diminishing it.
This document is page 4 of a legal filing dated March 26, 2021, likely relating to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the timeline and context of jury selection in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). It outlines the procedural mechanics of the 'Jury Plan,' detailing how master jury wheels are constructed from voter registration lists in specific NY counties (Manhattan, Bronx, Westchester, etc.) to ensure proportionate representation. A footnote clarifies qualification criteria for jurors, including English proficiency, citizenship, and exemptions for hardship or occupation.
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 148-1) from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. It contains a list of specific legal requests (numbered 14-26) asking the government to provide particular details regarding allegations of grooming, sexual abuse, and interstate travel involving Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and three anonymous minor victims (Minor Victim-1, -2, and -3). The document references specific timeframes, including a conspiracy period from 1994-1997 and a specific travel incident in 1996.
This document is a continued page of a Palm Beach Police Department incident report dated April 20, 2006, detailing the execution of a search warrant at Jeffrey Epstein's property. Police interviewed staff and contractors present, including house manager Janusz Banasiak, interior designer Mark Zeff (who was on the phone with Epstein during the raid), and architect Douglas Schoettle, all of whom discussed Epstein's assistants (specifically Sara Kellen, Nada, and Adrianna). During the search, officers discovered and disabled two covert hidden cameras located in clocks within the garage and beside Epstein's desk.
This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that flight logs suggest the accuser 'Jane' may have met Epstein and Maxwell in 1996 rather than 1994, noting a specific flight in November 1996 from Palm Beach to New York. The defense attacks Jane's credibility by highlighting a lack of flight records for when she was 14-15 and questioning her testimony regarding a 1997 lawsuit she filed against her school teachers.
This document is a partial legal summation from August 10, 2022, discussing evidence presented or promised in a case, likely related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. It highlights discrepancies between promised evidence (like nude photographs and schoolgirl outfits) and what was actually seen, and notes that law enforcement witnesses failed to deliver on promises and case agents were not called to testify. The document also references FedEx records indicating Ghislaine Maxwell did not send anything to an underage girl.
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation delivered by Ms. Moe. She argues that crimes occurred within the Southern District of New York, citing evidence related to several counts, including trips to Manhattan by individuals named Jane and Annie, and Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule 'sexualized massages' in New York.
This document is a page from the prosecution's summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Prosecutor Ms. Moe outlines the evidence for 'Count Five' (sex trafficking conspiracy spanning 2000-2004), detailing how Maxwell recruited Virginia Roberts at Mar-a-Lago and facilitated Carolyn's sexual abuse in Palm Beach and New York. The prosecutor emphasizes the legal standard for conspiracy, noting that the jury only needs to find that the agreement existed for 'one moment' and that an overt act was taken by either Maxwell or Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity