DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009563.jpg
This document is the cover page for the Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's Omnibus Post-Trial Motions, filed on February 25, 2022, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It lists Damian Williams as the U.S. Attorney and Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach as Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00009561.jpg
This document is page 20 of a Court Order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Judge orders that Juror 50's completed questionnaire be unsealed and docketed, citing that public interest outweighs privacy concerns following the juror's public comments. Additionally, the Court schedules a hearing for March 8, 2022, requiring Juror 50 to testify under oath regarding their answers to specific questions on the juror questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009559.jpg
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely *US v. Maxwell*) denying the Defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for Juror 50's communications. The Court rules that the request is a 'fishing expedition' and procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which generally prohibits private parties (like the Defendant) from subpoenaing content from providers like Facebook or Instagram; only the Government may do so with a warrant.
DOJ-OGR-00009554.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 620) from February 25, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text presents the Government's argument against the Defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing allegations that 'Juror 50' made false statements during voir dire. The filing cites *Warger v. Shauers* and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to argue that juror testimony regarding internal deliberations or personal experiences (unless 'extraneous') cannot be used to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009550.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing (Document 620) from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated February 25, 2022. The text discusses a post-trial motion regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically addressing whether the juror lied during voir dire about social media usage. The Court ruled that a hearing is warranted regarding specific questionnaire answers but denied the Defendant's request to probe the juror's social media history, citing that the juror's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps were consistent with their testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00009547.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely an opinion or order, dated February 25, 2022. The court is addressing a defendant's argument for an evidentiary hearing, rejecting it by citing numerous legal precedents that establish a very high standard for post-verdict inquiries into jury conduct. The court emphasizes that motions to set aside verdicts are disfavored and that allowing such inquiries without concrete evidence could lead to negative consequences like jury harassment and tampering.
DOJ-OGR-00009546.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated February 25, 2022. The Court denies the Defendant's (Maxwell) motion for an immediate new trial based on the current record but rules that an evidentiary hearing must be held to investigate Juror 50's alleged nondisclosure of sexual abuse history during jury selection. The text cites the 'McDonough standard' and legal precedents requiring hearings when juror impartiality is in doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00009532.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581) filed in 2013, subsequently used as an exhibit in the 2022 Giuffre v. Maxwell case. It details the government's argument against David Parse, an investment broker, regarding his role in illegal backdating of financial transactions for tax shelters involving clients like the Aronoff family and Michael Toporek. The text criticizes Parse for attempting to blame his sales assistant, Carrie Yackee, for executing the illegal trades.
DOJ-OGR-00009526.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents for a legal filing (likely a sentencing memorandum) regarding a defendant named 'Parse' (David Parse), originally filed in 2013. It outlines sections regarding tax shelter fraud, personal tax evasion, and sentencing guidelines. The document was later filed as Exhibit A-6075 in February 2022, within the docket of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), likely submitted as legal precedent regarding sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00009525.jpg
This document is the cover page for an Amended Sentencing Memorandum filed by the United States (via US Attorney Preet Bharara) regarding defendant David Parse in the case *United States v. Paul Daugerdas, et al.* (S3 09 Cr. 581). Originally filed on March 18, 2013, this specific copy was submitted as Exhibit A-6074 on February 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), likely as legal precedent or background material.
DOJ-OGR-00009521.jpg
This is a separator or cover page for 'Exhibit G' within a legal filing. It displays multiple case headers, indicating the document was originally filed on March 15, 2013, in case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP, and subsequently refiled or processed in October 2022. The document bears a Department of Justice bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00009521).
DOJ-OGR-00009520.jpg
This document is a placeholder page from a legal filing, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 616-3, filed on February 24, 2022. The page states that pages A-5944 to A-6040 are intentionally left blank. It includes a Department of Justice (DOJ) document identifier in the footer.
DOJ-OGR-00009510.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (dated March 7, 2013) submitted by Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III. It appears to be part of a sentencing memorandum or character reference for a defendant named 'David' (likely David Parse, based on the case number 1:09-cr-00581-WHP associated with Paul Daugerdas). The text focuses on David's family life, his marriage to Theresa Austerberry, and includes character reference quotes from his brother-in-law James Yetter and others regarding his parenting skills. The document was later filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on Feb 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009505.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Page 27 of the specific session, Page 86 of the filing) filed on February 24, 2022. It marks the conclusion of a hearing where The Court thanks counsel (Ms. Davis) for arguments on a motion and states that the decision is reserved. The text mentions reliance on statements made by Catherine Conrad.
DOJ-OGR-00009501.jpg
This document is page 82 of a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, as an exhibit (A-5925) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The text captures a legal argument by Ms. Davis referencing the 'Parse' case (likely United States v. Parse) and a letter from juror Catherine Conrad. The argument focuses on the legal distinction between 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' in the context of tax evasion and conspiracy counts, and how the jury's split verdict demonstrates a lack of prejudice and a deliberate decision-making process. This appears to be a citation of precedent used during post-trial motions in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009500.jpg
This document is page 81 of Exhibit A-5924, filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). However, the text of the transcript appears to be from a separate legal proceeding (likely a tax fraud case involving David Parse, Jenkins & Gilchrist, and Deutsche Bank) being used as a legal precedent or argument within the Maxwell trial. Ms. Davis argues to the Court that evidence shows 'Mr. Parse' had knowing criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS, distinguishing his actions from a simple mistake.
DOJ-OGR-00009493.jpg
This document is page 15 (marked A-5917) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues that there was no proof the defendant knew specific transactions were wrong and claims a 'government partisan' juror was biased against the defendant, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in *Strickland* regarding harmless error. The Judge then invites prosecutor Ms. Davis to respond.
DOJ-OGR-00009487.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. An attorney is arguing before the judge regarding the conduct of the 'Brune firm,' suggesting they 'dropped the ball' regarding a revelation about someone with the 'same name' rather than engaging in a deliberate strategy. The speaker notes that this error might result in a 'very long trial' having to be done again, implying a discussion about a mistrial or retrial motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009480.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, as part of a larger filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which corresponds to the Ghislaine Maxwell case). However, the content of the transcript records proceedings for 'United States of America v. David Parse,' where attorney Paul Shechtman argues for a new trial based on 'ineffective assistance of counsel.' This transcript was likely submitted in the Maxwell case as legal precedent or an exhibit regarding standards for new trials.
DOJ-OGR-00009474.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a Curriculum Vitae or expert report bibliography for legal scholar Stephen Gillers. It lists his publications (items 122-139) between 2003 and 2006, covering topics such as legal ethics, judicial selection, and high-profile cases like Martha Stewart's trial and Supreme Court nominations. The document bears a header indicating it was filed in 2022 as part of the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330), likely as an exhibit related to expert testimony or legal arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00009471.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a bibliography or curriculum vitae for Stephen Gillers, filed as an exhibit in legal proceedings (specifically Case 1:20-cr-00330, the Ghislaine Maxwell case). The page lists publications from 1997 to 1999, the majority of which focus on legal ethics and analysis surrounding the investigation, perjury accusations, and impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The document lists 18 specific articles published in major newspapers and legal journals.
DOJ-OGR-00009469.jpg
This document is a page from a bibliography or Curriculum Vitae for Stephen Gillers, filed as Exhibit A-5865 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330) on Feb 24, 2021. It lists 19 publications authored by Gillers between 1988 and 1993 in various legal journals and newspapers, covering topics such as legal ethics, prosecutorial conduct, and constitutional rights. The document appears to be part of expert witness credentials submitted to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009468.jpg
This document appears to be a page from the curriculum vitae or bibliography of Stephen Gillers, filed as an exhibit in court cases (including Case 1:20-cr-00330). It lists numbered publications (items 15 through 34) written by Gillers between January 1986 and June 1988, published in various legal and news outlets such as the New York Law Journal and The New York Times. The articles cover topics regarding legal ethics, lawyer discipline, and specific public figures like Bernhardt Goetz and Roy Cohn.
DOJ-OGR-00009467.jpg
This document is a page from the Curriculum Vitae of legal scholar Stephen Gillers, filed as Exhibit A-5863 in court case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details his legal education at NYU Law School and undergraduate degree from CUNY, his date of birth (Nov 3, 1943), and provides a selected bibliography of 14 articles he authored between 1978 and 1985 for publications such as The Nation, The New York Times, and the New York Law Journal. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp indicating it was part of a production by the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00009430.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Berke. Berke describes a conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a background check on a woman where a 'disbarred lawyer' with the same name was found, though they concluded it was a case of mistaken identity based on educational background. The direct examination by Mr. Shechtman concludes, and cross-examination by Mr. Okula begins with some light banter about a 'bucket list'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity