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-00005254.jpg
This is the final signature page (page 5) of a legal filing from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, filed on October 18, 2021 (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 355). The text concludes an argument regarding jury selection (voir dire), stating that group discussion is safe and efficient. It is signed by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00005253.jpg
This document is page 4 of a filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues against attorney-led jury selection, supporting Court-led 'voir dire' instead. Additionally, the Government argues that individual sequestered voir dire is not warranted for all questions, suggesting that sensitive topics like sexual abuse and pretrial publicity can be handled at the sidebar rather than in a fully sequestered setting.
DOJ-OGR-00005248.jpg
This document is page 3 of a Government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 15, 2021. The Government argues that the defense's proposed deadline of November 15, 2021, for filing Rule 412 motions (regarding the admissibility of victims' sexual behavior) is impractical as it conflicts with jury selection and the Thanksgiving holiday. The Government requests an earlier deadline to allow sufficient time for investigation and *in camera* hearings.
DOJ-OGR-00005239.jpg
This is Page 3 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that the Defense's proposed deadline of November 15, 2021, for filing Rule 412 motions (concerning the admissibility of evidence regarding a victim's sexual behavior) is too close to trial, specifically conflicting with jury selection and the Thanksgiving holiday. The Government requests an earlier deadline to ensure victims have sufficient notice and the Court has time to resolve sensitive issues.
DOJ-OGR-00005238.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (Rape Shield Law), the Court has the authority to set a deadline for defense motions regarding sexual behavior evidence earlier than the standard 14 days before trial. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to support the request for an earlier briefing schedule to ensure victims' rights to be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00005231.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 346) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues that incompetence at the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center) is hindering Maxwell's ability to review vital trial materials and prepare for her defense. Sternheim characterizes the detention conditions as 'extraordinary and onerous' for a nearly 60-year-old non-violent detainee and warns that inaction may erode constitutional rights and delay the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005222.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 17 of 17) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 13, 2021. The text requests the Court to grant individual sequestered voir dire due to the sensitive nature of the charges and pervasive pretrial publicity. The document is signed by attorneys Bobbi C. Sternheim, Christian R. Everdell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, and Laura A. Menninger on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00005217.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Document 342) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 13, 2021. The text presents a legal argument advocating for attorney-conducted voir dire (jury selection questioning), citing that attorneys possess more in-depth knowledge of the case nuances than the presiding judge. It references legal precedents from the Fifth Circuit and scholarly articles to support the claim that counsel must be allowed to probe jurors for hidden prejudices.
DOJ-OGR-00005213.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal defense filing (Document 342) from October 13, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that a robust jury questionnaire and individual voir dire are necessary because the jury pool has been tainted by 'pervasive, vitriolic, and extreme' negative media coverage. The defense compares Maxwell's situation to other high-profile New York sex scandals (citing politicians and media figures) to illustrate the hostile environment and potential for juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00005209.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 13, 2021. It presents legal arguments justifying the use of jury questionnaires to screen for bias (actual, implied, and inferred) during voir dire. The text cites precedents from the Second Circuit and references other high-profile cases involving extensive pretrial publicity, such as those of Jeffrey Skilling (Enron), R. Kelly, Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos), and Keith Rainier (Nexium), to support the argument.
DOJ-OGR-00005204.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 12, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, is a joint request from the prosecution (Government) and the defense to the Court. Both parties ask that only jurors with availability beyond the Christmas holiday be selected for the trial. The defense estimates its case will last approximately two weeks but notes this may change after reviewing late-night disclosures from the Government, which the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, had not yet received due to delivery issues at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00005187.jpg
This handwritten legal document argues that Congress intentionally excluded specific child abuse definitions found in § 3509(a) when making technical corrections in 1994, suggesting these definitions apply to civil reporting rather than criminal statutes. The text cites legal precedents such as *Ibarra v. Holder*, *Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement*, and *Brown v. Gardner* to support principles of statutory interpretation regarding congressional intent and context.
DOJ-OGR-00002898.jpg
This document is Page 9 of a legal filing (Document 195) from April 5, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues that any records obtained via Rule 17(c) subpoenas must be marked confidential under a protective order and shared with the opposing party, citing that the rule does not allow for secretive evidence gathering. It references the reciprocal discovery obligations of Rule 16 and cites the precedent of United States v. St. Lawrence.
DOJ-OGR-00002891.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 195) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the limitations of Rule 17 subpoenas in criminal cases, arguing they cannot be used for broad discovery or to find leads, unlike in civil procedure. The text heavily cites legal precedents including *Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States*, *United States v. Purin*, and *United States v. Tagliaferro* to establish the standard for requiring document production.
DOJ-OGR-00002888.jpg
This document is a legal letter filed on April 5, 2021, by Laura A. Menninger, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter requests a one-week continuance for the arraignment on the S2 Indictment, moving it from April 16 to April 23, 2021, due to a scheduling conflict in Colorado and ongoing evidence review. The letter notes that the government does not oppose the request and mentions that the delay would allow Maxwell's family time to arrange travel to attend.
DOJ-OGR-00002875.jpg
This legal document, dated March 29, 2021, is a filing from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It clarifies the role of the FBI New York Office in an investigation conducted by the FBI Florida Office, stating that the New York office provided only 'ancillary support' by interviewing four witnesses between 2007 and 2008. The document asserts that this assistance did not make the New York office part of the prosecution team and that such inter-office cooperation is common.
DOJ-OGR-00002868.jpg
This document outlines the differences between the S1 and S2 Indictments in a criminal case, specifically noting the extension of the conspiracy timeline to 2004 and the addition of Minor Victim-4 in Counts One and Three. It states that Counts Two and Four remain unchanged, while Count Five introduces a new charge for sex trafficking conspiracy involving Minor Victim-4.
DOJ-OGR-00002790.jpg
This document page argues for the release of Ms. Maxwell on bail, asserting that proposed conditions, including renouncing foreign citizenship and strict asset monitoring, are sufficient to mitigate flight risk. It contends that her continued detention is prejudicial, impairing her physical health and ability to prepare for trial, while a footnote details specific issues with discovery access, mail delays, and unsafe visiting conditions at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00002783.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines proposed bail conditions for Ms. Maxwell, including 24/7 private security and strict supervision by Pretrial Services. It argues against the government's opposition to bail and asserts that the District Court retains jurisdiction to decide on the matter despite a pending appeal in the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00002782.jpg
This document is the Preliminary Statement of a legal filing (Document 171) dated March 23, 2021, regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's third application for bail. It outlines a massive proposed bail package including $28.5 million in bonds, $9.5 million in property, renunciation of foreign citizenship, and home confinement in NYC. The filing argues these strict conditions are sufficient to assure her appearance at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00033191.jpg
This document is a letter from a citizen (signing as 'A Concerned Patriot' with email johngoes15@yahoo.com) to Lanna Belohlavek, criticizing the lenient plea deal and sentencing of Jeffrey Epstein. The writer references Conchitta Sarnoff's reporting in the Daily Beast and accuses the judicial system of corruption and favoring the wealthy, contrasting Epstein's treatment with a hypothetical 'Tyrone from Dade County.' A sticky note attached to the document shows an internal staff query asking if a response should be issued, with the handwritten instruction 'NO'.
DOJ-OGR-00033186.jpg
This document is page 17 of 20 of a 'FACTS Report' concerning subject Lawrence Paul Visoski Jr. (known in the broader context as one of Epstein's pilots). Aside from the header identifying the subject and the DOJ Bates stamp, the entire content of the page is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00033170.jpg
This document is the cover page (Page 1 of 20) of a 'FACTS Report' for a subject named Lawrence Paul Visoski Jr. The main content of the page is completely redacted. A document identifier in the footer, 'DOJ-OGR-00033170', suggests a connection to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
DOJ-OGR-00033148.jpg
This document is a label from 'A BETTER COPY CENTER' for 'Box #1' of copied documents. The client is identified as 'SAO' (likely the State Attorney's Office), and the case name is 'Jeffrey Epstein'. The label also contains a public records request number and a Department of Justice (DOJ) document identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00033142.jpg
This document is a concordance/index page (Page 154) from a transcript produced by Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. It lists keywords alphabetically from 'V' (Vanity) to 'Y' (Yep), along with their page and line numbers in the source text. Key entities listed include 'Villafona', 'Vince', 'WEISS', and the location 'Wellington'. The document bears a footer date of 07/26/17 and is associated with Public Records Request No. 17-295 and DOJ identifier DOJ-OGR-00033142.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity