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-00005827.jpg
This page is from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 397) filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text discusses the Court's previous denial of the defendant's motion to strike indictment language regarding 'Minor Victim-3,' stating it was premature. The majority of the document page is heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005825.jpg
This document is page 42 of a legal filing (Document 397) from October 29, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number). The Government argues that the testimony of 'Minor Victim-3' is admissible as direct evidence of the charged offenses, specifically citing the sexual abuse committed by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. It also addresses procedural arguments regarding Rule 404(b) notices.
DOJ-OGR-00005776.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents (page 'i') for a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The contents indicate a legal argument regarding the admissibility of evidence, specifically arguing that certain items are not relevant or should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial.
DOJ-OGR-00005772.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Document 395) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The text presents legal arguments citing various case precedents to contend that the prosecution and the Court should not refer to accusers as 'victims' or 'minor victims.' The filing argues that such terminology improperly influences the jury, implies guilt before a verdict, and specifically prejudices the charge regarding whether Maxwell knew the accusers were underage.
DOJ-OGR-00005748.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing, specifically Document 393 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the structure of the filing, which includes sections for an introduction, factual background, argument, and conclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00005746.jpg
This document is a cover sheet for a legal filing, specifically 'Exhibit A' in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It was filed on October 29, 2021, and its contents are sealed from public view. The Bates number 'DOJ-OGR-00005746' suggests it is part of a document production from the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00005744.jpg
This is a page from a legal motion filed on October 29, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorneys argue that a redacted individual's identification of Maxwell should be suppressed because the individual never previously identified Maxwell as an abuser in interviews or under oath. The document asserts that the identification procedure was suggestive and occurred too long after the alleged events.
DOJ-OGR-00005739.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing, specifically Document 392 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It indicates the document is structured with a 'BACKGROUND' section starting on page 1 and an 'ARGUMENT' section starting on page 2.
DOJ-OGR-00005737.jpg
This document is a placeholder page for 'Exhibit A' within court case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The actual content of the exhibit is not shown because it was filed under seal on October 29, 2021. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp number DOJ-OGR-00005737.
DOJ-OGR-00005722.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 10 of 11) of a legal filing in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated October 18, 2021, and filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text concludes a legal argument regarding hearsay evidence, asserting that a specific record does not meet the business records exception. It lists the defense legal team representing Maxwell, including attorneys from Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, Cohen & Gresser, and the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00005717.jpg
This document is the introduction to a Motion in Limine filed by Ghislaine Maxwell on October 29, 2021, seeking to exclude 'Government Exhibit 52.' The defense argues the exhibit is an unauthenticated, altered compilation of hearsay with no identified author or custodian, originating from lawyers representing Epstein accusers in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil case. The text details physical irregularities in the exhibit, such as inconsistent staple marks and tab shadows, suggesting tampering or cut-and-paste compilation.
DOJ-OGR-00002910.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim regarding the confinement conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. It details complaints including delayed mail, unreadable discovery discs, moldy food, sleep deprivation due to constant lighting and flashlight checks, and 'de facto solitary confinement.' The filing also argues that inadequate computer equipment is hindering Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial given the massive amount of discovery documents.
DOJ-OGR-00002909.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal filing by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The document alleges that the MDC violated HIPAA by releasing Maxwell's medical info, describes her deteriorating physical condition (failing eyesight, thinning hair), and details an incident where she was physically abused (shoved) by a guard while being moved to an isolation cell. The defense requests the Court order the MDC to stop releasing health info and demands video evidence of the abuse incident, which the government claims exists but the defense believes was not recorded.
DOJ-OGR-00002902.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing from April 6, 2021, regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the conditions of the defendant's confinement at the MDC, specifically highlighting that she is separated from her isolation cell from 7am to 8pm daily with access to electronics and showers. The text extensively describes the protocols for attorney-client communications, noting she receives 25 hours of private VTC calls per week, and clarifies that surveillance cameras monitor the door but do not record the audio or visual content of these legal meetings.
DOJ-OGR-00002885.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, dated March 31, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that any delay in the trial schedule is the fault of the government for filing a late superseding indictment despite previous assurances (cited from a July 14, 2020 transcript) that they did not anticipate doing so. The defense claims this expansion of the case prejudices Maxwell, prolongs her detention, and transforms the proceedings from a 'two-week' trial into a much longer affair.
DOJ-OGR-00002843.jpg
This is the first page of a Superseding Indictment filed on March 29, 2021, in the SDNY against Ghislaine Maxwell. Count One charges her with Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts. The overview alleges that between 1994 and 2004, Maxwell recruited and groomed victims as young as 14 for Jeffrey Epstein, knowing they were minors.
DOJ-OGR-00002837.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 589) filed on March 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC). The text details the Court's rejection of Schulte's arguments that the Jury Plan systematically excludes African Americans and Hispanic Americans. The Court rules that factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the frequency of people moving residences, and the use of voter registration lists do not constitute constitutional violations under the Sixth or Fifth Amendments.
DOJ-OGR-00002829.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court order filed on March 26, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text addresses a legal dispute regarding 'Underrepresentation' in jury selection, specifically defining the 'Relevant Jury Venire.' The defendant (Schulte) argued for the use of the White Plains 'qualified wheel,' while the Government argued for the 'master wheel.' The Court ruled in favor of the Government, concluding that the White Plains master wheel is the relevant jury venire for the fair cross-section analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00002826.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (filed March 24, 2021) outlining 'Applicable Law' under the Sixth Amendment regarding jury selection. It details the requirements for establishing a 'fair cross-section' of the community in a jury pool, citing precedents such as *Taylor v. Louisiana* and *Duren v. Missouri*. The footer indicates this document was processed by the Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR).
DOJ-OGR-00002801.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 3 of 3) of a court order filed on March 24, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan signed the order, which instructs counsel to confer regarding redactions for briefings and specifies formatting requirements for filings.
DOJ-OGR-00002798.jpg
This document is the final page (Page 18 of the filing, internal page 6) of a legal opinion submitted by French attorney William Julié in US Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues that under French law (specifically Article 696-4), individuals who have lost their French nationality are not protected from extradition, citing precedents where the French government deported such individuals.
DOJ-OGR-00002795.jpg
This page is an excerpt from a legal filing by French attorney William Julié in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues that French laws prohibiting the extradition of French nationals should be interpreted strictly and should not apply to individuals who are no longer French nationals at the time of the request. It specifically cites Article 3 of the Treaty and Article 696-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing these laws are designed to prevent offenders from fraudulently acquiring citizenship to escape extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00002745.jpg
This document is the second page of a legal letter filed on March 1, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorney Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP requests Judge Alison J. Nathan extend the deadline for the defendant's reply to March 15, 2021. The document also notes that the trial is scheduled to begin on July 12, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00002719.jpg
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity