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-00002282.jpg
This document is page 4 (marked as 'iii') of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated January 25, 2021. It is a Table of Authorities listing relevant Statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1623, 2422, 2423(a)) and Rules (Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a), 14(a), and Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7) cited in the main document. The page bears the Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002282.
DOJ-OGR-00002281.jpg
This document is page 'ii' (3 of 19) of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' section listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, including United States v. Halper and United States v. Burke. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00002281'.
DOJ-OGR-00002280.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. The filing outlines arguments concerning the joinder and severance of offenses, specifically distinguishing between "Mann Act Counts" and "Perjury Counts," and argues that the perjury counts should be severed to avoid substantially prejudicing Ms. Maxwell at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002276(1).jpg
This is page 2 of a legal letter filed on January 25, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Ghislaine Maxwell case). Attorneys Mark S. Cohen and Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP inform Judge Alison J. Nathan that they will submit motions containing 'Confidential Information' via email for review rather than filing them immediately on the public docket, to allow the government to review proposed redactions pursuant to a Protective Order.
DOJ-OGR-00002275(1).jpg
A legal letter dated January 25, 2021, from the law firm Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter lists 12 specific pretrial motions being filed by the defense, including motions to dismiss various counts of the indictment, suppress evidence, and separate trials. Two of the motions (items 3 and 11) contain redactions regarding the target of a government subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00002272(1).jpg
This document is a court order from the Southern District of New York dated January 25, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan notes the receipt of a letter from the Bureau of Prisons requesting the court vacate a previous order that granted Maxwell access to a laptop for reviewing discovery on weekends and holidays. The Judge orders that both the Defendant and the Government may respond to the BOP's request within one week.
DOJ-OGR-00002271.jpg
Defense attorney Christian Everdell writes to Judge Alison Nathan requesting a court order compelling the BOP/MDC to allow Ghislaine Maxwell access to a laptop on weekends and holidays to review 'millions of documents' for her defense. The letter argues there are no security impediments to this request. Judge Nathan grants the unobjected-to request and orders the BOP to provide said access on January 15, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00002267.jpg
This document is a webpage printout from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), dated January 4, 2021, and filed in a legal case. It outlines the BOP's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically its policy of reviewing inmates for home confinement based on risk factors defined by the CDC. This policy was implemented following a directive from Attorney General Barr on March 26, 2020, which led to a significant increase in inmates being placed on home confinement.
DOJ-OGR-00002261(1).jpg
Defense attorney Christian R. Everdell writes to Judge Alison J. Nathan requesting a 30-day extension to file a notice of appeal regarding the denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail motion. The letter argues there is good cause for the extension as the defense considers submitting a third bail application with stricter conditions and needs time to research jurisdictional issues and review documents.
DOJ-OGR-00002252.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request for release, reaffirming that she presents a flight risk and determining that her conditions of confinement at the MDC (including COVID-19 lockdowns) do not violate her constitutional rights or justify release. The text notes that the Defendant has received more time than other inmates to review discovery and communicate with counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00002252(1).jpg
This is page 20 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (identified by case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the defendant's request for release, reaffirming that she presents a flight risk and rejecting arguments that her conditions of confinement at the MDC (specifically relating to COVID-19 lockdowns and attorney access) violate her constitutional rights. The document notes that she has received significant time to review discovery compared to other inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00002248.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's request for release, citing a 'lack of candor' and 'woefully incomplete' financial representations made to Pretrial Services. Consequently, the Court concludes the Defendant remains a flight risk and rejects the proposed $28.5 million bail package.
DOJ-OGR-00002245(1).jpg
This is page 13 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The court is analyzing the defendant's flight risk, concluding that her French citizenship, potential to flee to Israel, and extraordinary financial resources justify continued detention. The judge argues that anticipatory extradition waivers are insufficient because the defendant could still frustrate or delay the extradition process.
DOJ-OGR-00002239(1).jpg
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's decision to deny the Defendant's renewed motion for bail, citing the Bail Reform Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The ruling establishes a presumption in favor of detention because the Defendant is charged with offenses involving minor victims, and notes that the Grand Jury indictment provides sufficient probable cause for this presumption.
DOJ-OGR-00002238.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), denying a renewed motion for bail. The text outlines the Defendant's proposals for release, including paid private security, waivers of extradition from the UK and France, and arguments regarding COVID-19 conditions in jail. Despite these arguments and new financial information, the Court concludes that no conditions can reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00002237(1).jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 106) from December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It details the Defendant's new motion for bail, proposing a $28.5 million package co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family, secured by property and cash. The proposal includes home confinement with GPS monitoring, private security paid for by the defendant, and a family member acting as a third-party custodian.
DOJ-OGR-00002235.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 106) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 30, 2020. It outlines the legal standards for pretrial detention and bail under the Eighth Amendment and the Bail Reform Act. It notes that the defendant (Maxwell) did not appeal the initial detention order and remains incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center.
DOJ-OGR-00002234(1).jpg
This document is page 2 of a Court Opinion and Order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail, citing flight risk, substantial resources, foreign citizenship in a non-extradition country, and lack of candor regarding finances. It outlines the background of the case, including the June 2020 indictment for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors and the Defendant's subsequent arrest in New Hampshire.
DOJ-OGR-00002224(1).jpg
This document is a page from a legal memorandum filed on December 23, 2020, by French lawyer William Julié regarding the extradition of Ghislaine Maxwell. Julié argues that the US-France Extradition Treaty allows France discretion to extradite its own citizens, countering the DOJ's reliance on the 2007 'Peterson case' precedent. The text analyzes the Peterson case, noting it was a discretionary decision by the Ministry of Justice rather than a court ruling, and references a 2007 letter from Senators Obama and Durbin regarding that matter.
DOJ-OGR-00002222.jpg
This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit A' as part of a legal filing. It was filed on December 23, 2020, in case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN and is marked as page 1 of 4. The page also includes a Department of Justice (DOJ) Bates number.
DOJ-OGR-00002221.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 15 of 15) of a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, dated December 18, 2020, and filed on December 23, 2020. It lists the legal defense team representing Ghislaine Maxwell, including attorneys from Cohen & Gresser LLP, Haddon, Morgan & Foreman P.C., and the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, along with their contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00002216(1).jpg
This page from a defense filing (dated Dec 23, 2020) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell accurately disclosed her assets to Pretrial Services despite being in jail without records. The defense rebuts the government's claim that she is hiding wealth or has 'unrestrained funds' to flee, citing a negative pledge on her London property and the illiquidity of $4 million controlled by her spouse.
DOJ-OGR-00002215(1).jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 103) from December 23, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that Maxwell and her spouse only discussed divorce prior to her arrest to protect him from 'terrible consequences,' not because the relationship was failing, and asserts that the spouse is willing to co-sign her bond. It also defends Maxwell's financial disclosures, stating she has pledged all her and her spouse's assets and that the government has not successfully challenged the accuracy of her financial report.
DOJ-OGR-00002210.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Exhibits' page from a court filing dated December 23, 2020, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists two specific exhibits: an addendum opinion by Julié concerning France and an addendum opinion by Perry concerning the U.K. The document bears a Department of Justice (DOJ) footer stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00002210(1).jpg
This document is a "Table of Exhibits" from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 23, 2020. It lists two exhibits: Exhibit A, an addendum opinion related to someone named Julié from France, and Exhibit B, an addendum opinion related to someone named Perry from the U.K. The page is marked with a Department of Justice (DOJ) Bates number.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity