attorneys
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Client |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Dashawn Robertson
|
Client |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROBERT
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROBERT
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
expert witnesses
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein Victim
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
[Redacted Female Subject]
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE DOE #4
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | OPR concluded that attorneys negotiating the NPA did many things contrary to internal government ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Identification of victims by attorneys to the Administrator. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing and sealing of deposition transcripts under protective order. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing arguments | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Impaneling of the Jury | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR conducted an extensive investigation into the handling of the Epstein case, reviewing documen... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | The jury selection process where Ms. Conrad was questioned and made omissions about her husband's... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document is an instruction for the jury during a trial, identified by case number 1:20-cr-003... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Closing arguments | Attorneys presented their closing arguments, asking the jury to make inferences from the evidence. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The document discusses the legal process of voir dire, specifically how the court can limit attor... | this district | View |
| N/A | Courthouse entry procedure | A mandatory procedure for all members of the public and attorneys to complete a health questionna... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A proposed charging conference to be held on a Friday. | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A meeting between AK and attorneys to discuss a proposal for SDNY to investigate conduct previous... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial where the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, exercised her right not to testify. The docume... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Discussion of the defendant's motion for attorney-conducted voir dire (jury selection) due to pre... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A legal trial during which the names of people were heard who did not appear to testify. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document is a transcript of jury instructions from a trial, specifically Instruction No. 43 r... | courthouse | View |
| N/A | Trial | The overall legal proceeding during which information about Ms. Conrad was or was not available. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A remarkable hearing where victims provided testimony and input, and attorneys offered legal advo... | N/A | View |
| 2023-11-09 | N/A | Settlement Hearing scheduled to determine fairness of the settlement. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing of transcript document 761. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Mid-morning break | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date for this transcript document. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing of Court Document 745 (Transcript) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-03-09 | N/A | Status conference held. | Superior Court of the Virgi... | View |
EFTA00037933.pdf
An email chain from October 4, 2019, discussing logistics for an upcoming briefing involving attorneys. The correspondents discuss the need to collect information for building access and question whether transportation, hotel, and reimbursements will be provided to the attending attorneys. The document is heavily redacted regarding identities.
EFTA00036683.pdf
An email sent on August 10, 2019 (the date of Epstein's death), forwarding information regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The sender notes that the Warden at NYM (New York Metropolitan Correctional Center) reported they were unaware of any requests from Epstein's attorneys to place him on suicide watch throughout his incarceration.
EFTA00035332.pdf
This document contains psychological observation notes from July 27-28, 2019, regarding Jeffrey Epstein while in custody. The notes detail his anxiety about returning to the SHU where he sustained neck injuries he claims not to remember, complaints of dehydration and arm numbness, and an incident involving a flushing toilet that caused him significant distress. Epstein suggests he may be on the autism spectrum due to noise aversion and being 'good with numbers,' and notes he spends long days in conferences with his attorneys.
EFTA00035313.pdf
An email chain from July 27, 2019, detailing a psychological observation update for inmate Jeffrey Epstein (#76318-054). Staff reported he appeared stable but complained of dehydration due to limited bathroom breaks during 12-hour legal visits, and anxiety/insomnia caused by noise in the Special Housing Unit (SHU). The report confirms Epstein was on Psych Observation but not Suicide Watch at the time.
EFTA00035052.pdf
An email chain between an Associate Warden at MCC New York and a medical professional (likely a psychologist) dated August 10, 2019. The correspondence details a visit to Jeffrey Epstein in the SHU on the previous Thursday (Aug 8), reporting that Epstein denied suicidal thoughts, showed no signs of distress, interacted with a cellmate, and was focused on legal meetings and moving to general population. This document is significant as it documents Epstein's mental state shortly before his death.
EFTA00033657.pdf
This document is an email chain dated August 10, 2019, between an Associate Warden at MCC New York and a medical professional (referred to as Dr.). The correspondence details a visit to Jeffrey Epstein in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) on the previous Thursday (likely August 8). The report explicitly states Epstein denied suicidal thoughts, showed no signs of distress or depression, was interacting with a cell mate, and was making future plans regarding his legal defense and transfer to the general population.
EFTA00026608.pdf
An email dated May 22, 2020, sent to the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The sender inquires about the process of sponsoring a T-Visa (typically for victims of human trafficking) for a female individual whose current work visa and passport are set to expire in August 2020. The individual's attorneys initiated the inquiry.
EFTA00010954.pdf
An email chain from October 22, 2019, coordinating a conference call line for a meeting with an 'Epstein victim and her attorneys.' The call was scheduled for 4:00 PM but was subsequently cancelled by the requestor. The document contains heavy redactions regarding the identities of the government or legal staff organizing the call.
DOJ-OGR-00008610.jpg
This document is page 72 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 50, which directs the jury not to draw inferences from uncalled witnesses who were mentioned during the trial but did not testify. It further emphasizes that the defendant bears no burden to call witnesses or produce evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008449.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, argues that the public interest in viewing presentation slides during closing arguments is minimal because the core information is already public. It outlines significant logistical challenges and potential delays associated with making materials like binders and slides accessible to the public in real-time. As a compromise, the parties have agreed to release the demonstrative materials for public review after the arguments are concluded.
DOJ-OGR-00008440.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, argues that the public interest in viewing the parties' presentation slides during closing arguments is minimal, as the content is already largely public. It highlights significant logistical concerns and potential delays that would arise from making the slides public in real-time, such as managing binders and toggling monitors. The parties have instead agreed to make the demonstratives available for public review after the arguments are complete.
DOJ-OGR-00001693.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court-filed Protective Order from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, dated July 30, 2020. It establishes strict rules for handling sensitive 'Discovery' materials, requiring Defense Counsel to encrypt information shared through non-email channels. The order explicitly prohibits all parties, including the Government, the Defendant, and their entire legal teams, from posting any Discovery information on the Internet or social media.
DOJ-OGR-00001674.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court-filed Protective Order from July 28, 2020, in a criminal case. It outlines the rules for handling discovery materials, stating that all members of the defense team are bound by the order even without individual signatures. The order mandates that Defense Counsel must encrypt discovery shared through non-electronic means and strictly prohibits all parties from posting any discovery information on the internet or social media.
DOJ-OGR-00001651.jpg
This document is a page from a Protective Order in criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 27, 2020. It establishes strict rules for handling 'Discovery' materials, limiting their use by both government and defense witnesses and counsel solely for preparation for the criminal trial. The order explicitly prohibits using the information for civil proceedings and forbids any party, including the Defendant and defense team, from posting the Discovery or its contents on the Internet.
DOJ-OGR-00001543.jpg
This document is a notice from a legal case in the Southern District of New York, filed on July 7, 2020. It instructs all individuals, including the public and attorneys, on the mandatory health screening procedures required for entry into the courthouse, which involve completing a questionnaire and a temperature check via a provided weblink or QR code.
DOJ-OGR-00001291.jpg
This document is a Memorandum Opinion and Order from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico regarding Defendant Dashawn Robertson's motion for reconsideration of his detention order. After reviewing various filings and holding a pretrial conference on February 4, 2021, the Court ordered Mr. Robertson's release under strict conditions to La Pasada Halfway House on February 5, 2021. The decision was made to ensure his appearance in court and community safety, and to facilitate his trial preparation, which was hindered by the COVID-19 pandemic affecting communication with his attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00000787.jpg
This legal document outlines fourteen bail conditions proposed by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team. The conditions include home detention in his Manhattan residence (valued at $77 million), electronic monitoring, and a substantial bond secured by his residence, private jet, his brother Mark's home, and his friend David Mitchell's investments. The proposal aims to guarantee Epstein's court appearance and mitigate any perceived danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00000723.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated 2019-09-03, detailing a witness's testimony about a traumatic encounter with Mr. Epstein. The speaker recounts how an 'audition' turned into a 'casting call for prostitution' and mentions Mr. Epstein's connections to powerful individuals like Bill Clinton. The court also expresses gratitude to all participants, victims, and attorneys for their contributions to the hearing and proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00000650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from September 3, 2019, in which a representative for the government addresses the court regarding the victims in the case. The speaker confirms that efforts were made to notify all known victims of the proceeding, in compliance with the Crimes Victims' Rights Act, and notes that both the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI have been in contact with them. The government also commits to continuing to provide services to the victims even if the indictment is dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00000601.jpg
This document is page 7 of a Protective Order from a legal case (1:19-cr-00490-RMB), filed on July 25, 2019. It details the rules for handling confidential information by the Defendant and Defense Counsel, including restrictions on possession, inspection under law enforcement protection, and a prohibition on duplication. The order also specifies the procedure for sharing information with 'Designated Persons' and requires the eventual return or destruction of all discovery materials to the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00002397.jpg
This document outlines procedures for handling confidential information in a legal case. It details the timeline for designating material to counsel, the requirement for a Motion to Seal when filing confidential information with the Court, and the process for challenging designations of protected material, including "CONFIDENTIAL" and "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY" classifications.
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-00019506.jpg
This document is a page from a Protective Order in a criminal case (Case 20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 27, 2020. It outlines strict rules for handling discovery materials, specifying that they can only be used by authorized individuals (such as the defense team and potential witnesses) for the sole purpose of preparing for the trial. The order explicitly prohibits all parties from posting any discovery information on the Internet and requires encryption for materials shared via non-electronic mail methods.
DOJ-OGR-00019306.jpg
This document is a page from a court's Protective Order, filed on July 30, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It outlines the rules for handling sensitive case information ('Discovery'), specifying that the entire defense team is bound by the order and that any dissemination of materials must be secure. The order strictly prohibits all parties, including the Government and the Defendant's team, from posting any Discovery information on the internet or social media.
DOJ-OGR-00014632.jpg
This document is page 232 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains jury instructions (the Charge) regarding the definition and weight of circumstantial evidence versus direct evidence, and Instruction No. 43 regarding inferences. The judge explicitly instructs the jury that they must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting her.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-15 | Received | Citigroup Settlem... | attorneys | $4,900,000.00 | Legal fees in exchange rate suit | View |
Legal analysis of Epstein's case
Epstein's attorneys prepared lengthy memoranda analyzing evidence and arguing nuanced legal points regarding federalism and federal criminal statutes.
No Subject
After a February 2016 meeting, AUSA-1 received a limited number of emails from the attorneys.
In-person legal visits
In-person visits as needed.
Testimony
Previous testimony referenced during cross-examination.
Depositions and potential perjury
AK has a vague memory of attorneys contacting her to inform her about depositions, but cannot recall specifics or if perjury was mentioned.
Legal advice/representation
The transcript mentions the witness's conversations with her attorneys, which are subject to privilege issues.
Discovery in Giuffre v. Maxwell
Two depositions designated confidential.
Legal Consultation
Confidential communications compromised by guard proximity, camera repositioning, and sensitive audio recording.
Attorney-client communication
Complaints about lack of privacy in open areas and poor ventilation in visiting rooms.
Legal Review
Review of discovery materials
Legal Consultation
Calls placed from the day room phone.
Legal Strategy/Info
Implicit discussion of attorney-client communications which Ms. Pomerantz objects to on grounds of privilege.
Legal Defense
Review of discovery materials and legal consultation.
Closing Arguments
Attorneys asking jury to infer facts based on reason and experience.
Legal Counsel
5 hours per weekday; 25 hours per week total.
Legal correspondence
Emails sent/received via MDC desktop computer.
Briefing Schedule
Setting deadlines for factual investigation results (6 p.m.) and briefs (Midnight).
Pretrial motions information
MDC refused Maxwell's request to speak with her lawyers the night before a filing deadline.
Attorney-client meetings
Unrestricted attorney-client meetings at the Albuquerque courthouse were rejected due to COVID-19 concerns.
Prosecution of Epstein
A presentation was made by attorneys in February 2016 for SDNY to prosecute Epstein.
Common Interest Privilege
Discussion regarding the existence of a common interest privilege agreement between attorneys as of this date.
L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein
Epstein claimed he did not recognize George Rush.
Deposition Testimony
Witness testified under oath regarding whether she told the truth to the FBI.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity