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-00020837.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated February 28, 2023 (filing date). Attorneys Mr. Everdell (Defense) and Ms. Moe (Prosecution) are arguing over how to answer a jury question regarding 'Count Four' and 'Jane.' The debate centers on whether a 'return flight' from New Mexico can serve as the basis for a conviction if the initial flight's intent for illegal sexual activity is in question.
DOJ-OGR-00020835.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) dated February 28, 2023. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury with the Judge, arguing that the jurors are distinguishing between a flight *to* New Mexico and a flight *from* New Mexico regarding 'illicit sexual activity.' Everdell states there is no record of a flight from New Mexico and argues about the necessary 'significant or motivating purpose' of the travel required for a guilty verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00020832.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the appeal or trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 22-1426) containing jury instructions (Charge). It details the legal requirements for proving Counts Two and Four, specifically focusing on the transportation of a minor ('Jane') across state lines for illegal sexual activity. The instructions clarify that the government must prove Maxwell knew Jane was under 17 and that the failure to actually accomplish the sexual activity is not a defense if the intent was present during transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00020831.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Charge) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details Instruction No. 21 regarding Count Four, which charges Maxwell with transporting an individual under 17 ('Jane') across state lines for illegal sexual activity in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The judge instructs the jury that the government must prove Maxwell's intent and knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, though the illegal activity need not be the sole purpose of the transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00020830.jpg
This document is a table of contents (page iii) from a legal filing, specifically Document 58 in Case 22-1426, filed on February 28, 2023. It lists two items contained within the larger document: an excerpt from a sentencing transcript dated June 28, 2022, and a Notice of Appeal dated July 7, 2022, indicating their respective page numbers (A-403 and A-420).
DOJ-OGR-00020828.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Case 22-1426), likely an appellate appendix, dated February 28, 2023. It lists various court documents related to the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, including indictments, orders by Judge Alison J. Nathan, transcripts of proceedings from late 2021, and a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement. The document outlines the structure of the appendix with page references ranging from A-1 to A-238.
DOJ-OGR-00020826.jpg
This document is a page from court transcripts (Jury Instruction No. 20) regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the legal elements for 'Count Four,' specifically the charge of transporting an individual ('Jane') under the age of 17 in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity between 1994 and 1997. The instruction clarifies that Maxwell did not need to physically transport the victim herself, but that making arrangements, such as purchasing tickets, satisfies the legal requirement.
DOJ-OGR-00020819.jpg
This page is part of a legal opinion (page 10 of the specific order, page 201 of the appellate appendix) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motion to dismiss count five of the S2 indictment (sex trafficking conspiracy) and rejects her argument that the Government's delay in bringing charges violated due process. The Court rules that Maxwell failed to show actual prejudice resulting from the delay.
DOJ-OGR-00020813.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. The court rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's arguments that the *Commonwealth v. Cosby* decision or the *Annabi* precedent should prevent her prosecution. The court rules that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from one district does not bind another district in this context, distinguishing her situation from Bill Cosby's case where a specific promise not to prosecute was made by a district attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00020811.jpg
This document contains a summary of court rulings denying several motions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, including motions to dismiss based on double jeopardy, untimeliness, multiplicity, and pre-indictment delay. It also addresses a motion to compel statements from 'Minor-Victim 4' and reiterates that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not protect Maxwell from prosecution in the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00020810.jpg
District Judge Alison J. Nathan denies all pending pretrial motions filed by defendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeking to dismiss the S2 superseding indictment and compel discovery. The court specifically rejects the argument that the charges are barred by Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, reaffirming that the agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00020808.jpg
This document is a signature page for an addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement concerning Jeffrey Epstein. It confirms Epstein's understanding and agreement to the terms. The document is signed on October 29, 2007, by Lilly Ann Sanchez, an attorney for Epstein, and on October 30, 2007, by a representative for the U.S. Attorney's office.
DOJ-OGR-00020804.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 7 of 7) of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein. It contains a statement certifying Epstein understands and agrees to the conditions. While signature blocks exist for Epstein, R. Alexander Acosta, A. Marie Villafaña, and Gerald Lefcourt, only Lilly Ann Sanchez (Attorney for Epstein) has signed and dated the document (9-24-07).
DOJ-OGR-00020789.jpg
This page is from a court order in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court addresses discovery disputes, specifically ruling that the Government's agreement to produce 'Giglio' and 'Jencks Act' materials six weeks prior to trial is sufficient for Maxwell to prepare, noting the Court lacks authority to force earlier disclosure of Jencks material. The Court also denies Maxwell's request for a pretrial hearing regarding the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, opting instead for conditional admission at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020787.jpg
This document is page 28 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The court denies Maxwell's motion to dismiss multiplicitous counts without prejudice and addresses discovery disputes, specifically accepting the Government's representation that it has already disclosed all required Brady and Giglio material. The court orders the parties to negotiate a schedule for any remaining pretrial disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00020781.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court ruling (Document 207) filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Maxwell. The court is denying Maxwell's motion to dismiss perjury counts, arguing that the ambiguity of questions and the materiality of her statements are issues of fact for a jury to decide, not grounds for pretrial dismissal. The text cites legal precedents regarding perjury, materiality in civil depositions, and the role of the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00020780.jpg
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated April 16, 2021, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss perjury charges. The Court denied the motion, stating that the charges are legally tenable and that arguments regarding the ambiguity of questions asked during her civil deposition are matters for a jury to decide. The document cites several legal precedents (Lighte, Wolfson) regarding perjury and 'knowing falsity'.
DOJ-OGR-00020779.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in the case against Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The court addresses and rejects several of Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is impermissibly vague, specifically concerning the lack of precise dates for the alleged abuse, the inclusion of noncriminal conduct, and the omission of victims' names. The court cites legal precedents to affirm that the indictment is sufficient, particularly in cases involving the sexual abuse of children where victims may struggle to recall exact dates.
DOJ-OGR-00020778.jpg
This legal document is a court filing addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss charges from an indictment, specifically the Mann Act counts, arguing they lack specificity. The Court denies the motion, concluding that the S1 superseding indictment is sufficiently clear under established legal precedent, which only requires tracking the statutory language and providing the time and place in approximate terms. The Court rejects Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is too vague regarding time periods, conduct described, and the identification of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00020772.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order (filed April 16, 2021) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's rejection of Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations, specifically concerning the 2003 PROTECT Act and retroactive application of laws to past conduct. The legal analysis relies on precedents such as 'Weingarten' and 'Landgraf'.
DOJ-OGR-00020768.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text addresses the timeliness of the indictment, specifically analyzing the Statute of Limitations under the Mann Act and the PROTECT Act of 2003. The Court rejects Maxwell's argument that the charges are time-barred, concluding that the extended limitations period for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors applies to her case.
DOJ-OGR-00020736.jpg
This document is the first page of a Superseding Indictment filed on March 29, 2021, in the Southern District of New York against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines Count One, charging a conspiracy to entice minors to travel for illegal sex acts between 1994 and 2004. The text alleges Maxwell facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's abuse by recruiting and grooming victims as young as 14.
DOJ-OGR-00020734.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 22-1426) printed on February 22, 2023. It lists filings entered on August 10, 2022, which are official transcripts and notices of filing for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The transcripts cover trial proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 21, 22, 27, and 28, 2021, transcribed by Paula Speer.
DOJ-OGR-00020733.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 22-1426) generated on February 22, 2023, listing filings entered on August 10, 2022. The filings (entries 762-768) relate to the official transcripts of trial proceedings for Ghislaine Maxwell held between December 16 and December 20, 2021, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan and transcribed by Paula Speer. The entries establish deadlines for redaction requests and indicate when the transcripts will be available to the public via PACER.
DOJ-OGR-00020730.jpg
This document is a court docket from the Southern District of New York, dated August 10, 2022, for Case 22-1426. It details the filing of official transcripts from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which took place in late 2021 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. The entries establish deadlines for parties to request redactions (August 31, 2022) before the transcripts are made publicly available through PACER on November 9, 2022.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity