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-00002372(1).jpg
This document is page 2 of a Protective Order filed on March 2, 2016 (stamped March 18, 2016) in the civil case Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. The order outlines rules to protect confidential information during the discovery process to prevent annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression of parties or witnesses. It defines the scope of materials covered, including documents, interrogatories, and depositions.
DOJ-OGR-00002367.jpg
This page from a court filing argues that the court has the inherent authority to suppress evidence obtained through government misrepresentation. It cites multiple legal precedents to support the claim that sanctions can be applied even if the misconduct occurred in a different venue, provided it is related to the current case.
DOJ-OGR-00002362(1).jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 134) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The text argues that the government colluded with a redacted third party (likely civil plaintiffs) starting in 2016 to engineer perjury charges against Maxwell. It contrasts two judicial rulings: one granting a government ex parte request and another rejecting an identical request in a different civil case, characterizing the government's actions as an attempt to deprive Maxwell of due process.
DOJ-OGR-00002354(3).jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Motion to Suppress) from February 4, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government made untrue representations regarding a redacted source who was instrumental in the prosecution and provided information before the investigation began. The text asserts that Maxwell would not have agreed to civil depositions in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case without the Protective Order, and argues the court should suppress the fruits of the government's misrepresentation, specifically the perjury counts arising from those depositions.
DOJ-OGR-00002353(1).jpg
This document is a legal motion filed on February 4, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team seeking to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena and to dismiss perjury charges (Counts Five and Six). The defense argues that the government unlawfully circumvented a Protective Order from the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* by issuing a subpoena and proceeding *ex parte* to prevent the accuracy of their representations from being contested. The recipient of the subpoena and specific details of the government's arguments are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002352(3).jpg
This document is the 'Table of Exhibits' page (page 5 of 23) from a legal filing (Document 134) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists nine exhibits (A through I), including a Civil Protective Order, a Giuffre Protective Order Proposal, and two transcripts from 2019. Exhibits C, F, G, H, and I are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002352(2).jpg
This document is a Table of Exhibits from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists several exhibits, including a Civil Protective Order, a 'Giuffre Protective Order Proposal,' and transcripts from March and April 2019, with other exhibits being fully redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002352(1).jpg
This document is page 5 of 23 from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 4, 2021. It serves as a Table of Exhibits listing items A through I. While Exhibits A, B, D, and E refer to protective orders (specifically mentioning Giuffre) and 2019 transcripts, Exhibits C, F, G, H, and I are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002351.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page iii) from a court filing (Document 134) in the case USA v. Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. It lists legal authorities and articles referenced in the main brief, including a New York Daily News article about federal prosecutors declining to pursue Epstein and Maxwell in 2016, and a New York Times piece by Norman Mailer. It also cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
DOJ-OGR-00002334(1).jpg
This represents a court order from the Southern District of New York in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 26, 2021. Judge Alison J. Nathan acknowledges the filing of twelve pre-trial motions by the defense, noting that several are under temporary seal due to requests for redaction of sensitive information. The order grants the Government two days to respond to these proposed redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00002322.jpg
This document is page 'i' (the Table of Contents) of a legal filing submitted on January 25, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the structure of the document, which includes a Preliminary Statement, a Statement of Facts covering procedural history and the District's Jury Plan, and an Argument section.
DOJ-OGR-00002320.jpg
This document is the second page of a legal filing (Document 125) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on January 25, 2021. It serves as the signature or counsel identification page, listing Haddon, Morgan & Foreman P.C. and Bobbi C. Sternheim as the attorneys representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002316.jpg
This is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 124) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated January 25, 2021. The defense argues that the indictment is unconstitutionally vague because it uses interchangeable terms for victims (e.g., 'Minor Victim-1' vs 'girls') and fails to provide specific dates or locations for alleged crimes occurring 27 years prior. The text lists specific vague allegations such as 'befriend,' 'groomed,' and 'took Minor Victim -2 to a movie' to illustrate the difficulty in preparing a defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002301.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 122 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on January 25, 2021. The content outlines the structure of a legal argument concerning the application of a 'multifactor test' to analyze alleged conspiracies, detailing factors such as the overlap of participants, time, common objectives, and geographic scope.
DOJ-OGR-00002299(1).jpg
This document is the signature page (page 2 of 2) for a legal filing submitted on January 25, 2021, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It lists the legal defense team representing Ghislaine Maxwell, including attorneys from Haddon, Morgan & Foreman P.C., Cohen & Gresser LLP, and the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim. The document includes contact information for the attorneys and bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002299.
DOJ-OGR-00002298(1).jpg
This document is a Notice of Motion (Pretrial Motion #8) filed on January 25, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. In this filing, defendant Ghislaine Maxwell requests the dismissal of either Count One or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment, arguing that they are multiplicitous. The defense also requests oral argument on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00002292(1).jpg
This legal filing (Page 14 of a defense motion) argues against joining 'Perjury Counts' with 'Mann Act Counts' in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense asserts that joining the charges would cause prejudice by introducing uncharged allegations from 1999-2002 involving Virginia Giuffre. The document emphasizes that a previous Palm Beach Police investigation interviewed over 30 victims who did not implicate Maxwell, and notes that the 2019 indictment charged Epstein alone.
DOJ-OGR-00002290.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on January 25, 2021. The defense argues that Perjury Counts should not be joined with Mann Act Counts because the alleged false statements occurred during 2016 civil depositions regarding a defamation suit (involving Virginia Giuffre) and were not made to the FBI or a grand jury to thwart an existing investigation. The text references a purported conspiracy between Maxwell and Epstein from 1999-2002.
DOJ-OGR-00002290(1).jpg
This document is page 12 of a defense filing (Document 120) from January 2021 in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the 'joinder' (combining) of Perjury Counts with Mann Act Counts, stating that Maxwell's alleged false statements in 2016 civil depositions were tangential to the defamation case and not part of a 'common scheme' to obstruct the Mann Act investigation. The defense distinguishes this case from legal precedent (Potamitis), emphasizing that Maxwell did not lie to the FBI or a Grand Jury to derail an investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 120) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on January 25, 2021. The text argues legal standards for the 'Severance of Offenses,' citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 and various precedents regarding when charges should be tried separately to avoid prejudice to the defendant. It lists numerous case citations including U.S. v. Mitan, U.S. v. Bradford, and U.S. v. Burke to support the argument that misjoined counts must be severed.
DOJ-OGR-00002287(1).jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 120) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the 'Severance of Offenses' under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, citing various precedents to argue that counts should be severed if joinder prejudices the defendant. It discusses the legal standards for 'misjoinder' and 'substantial prejudice' required to grant a motion to sever.
DOJ-OGR-00002286(1).jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments and case citations regarding the severance of charges and 'joinder,' specifically arguing that perjury counts should not be joined with substantive crimes if they are not sufficiently connected physically, temporally, or transactionally. The document cites precedents such as *United States v. Rivera*, *Randazzo*, and *Potamitis* to support the argument that unrelated offenses should be tried separately.
DOJ-OGR-00002284.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 120) dated January 25, 2021, from the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the 'Mann Act Counts' (Counts One through Four) of the indictment, detailing allegations that Maxwell conspired with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 1997 to transport individuals for illegal sexual activity in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London. It specifically notes the involvement of three accusers (Accuser-1, -2, and -3) and argues for the severance of Counts Five and Six to avoid juror confusion.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity