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-00002067.jpg
This document is a page from a forensic accounting report filed in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). It details the finances of the Terramar Project (US and UK), noting Maxwell's contributions of over $560,000 and a $57,000 donation from the Epstein Interests Foundation in 2013. The report asserts Maxwell received no financial benefit from the charity and lists reviewed bank accounts belonging to Maxwell and her spouse, though the specific bank names are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002065.jpg
This document is a Financial Condition Report filed in December 2020, summarizing Ghislaine Maxwell's assets between 2015 and 2020. It details a net worth of approximately $20.2 million in early 2015, the sale of a $15 million NYC property, and her 2016 marriage, after which she transferred the majority of her assets to a trust controlled by her spouse. It also notes a potential $1.5 million tax liability from a New York state audit.
DOJ-OGR-00002062.jpg
This document is the cover page for a 'Financial Condition Report' regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, covering the years 2015 through 2020. It was filed on December 14, 2020, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, and was prepared by Macalvins Limited Chartered Accountants for the law firm Cohen & Gresser LLP.
DOJ-OGR-00002043.jpg
A character reference letter submitted to the court (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) in support of Ghislaine Maxwell, likely for a bail application. The redacted author attests to Maxwell's appropriate behavior around children, expresses belief in her innocence regarding sex trafficking charges, and asserts confidence that she will not flee and will attend her trial to clear her name.
DOJ-OGR-00002038.jpg
This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit F' in the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It was filed on December 14, 2020, and is marked as page 1 of 3. The document itself contains no substantive information beyond its identification as an exhibit and its case filing details.
DOJ-OGR-00002035.jpg
This document is a cover sheet for 'Exhibit E', filed on December 14, 2020, in the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains a Bates stamp indicating it was processed by the DOJ (DOJ-OGR-00002035).
DOJ-OGR-00002024.jpg
This document is a redacted character reference letter filed on December 14, 2020, in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application. The unnamed author attests to trusting Maxwell implicitly with their children, citing a specific instance where their teenage son visited Maxwell in New York alone. The letter also highlights Maxwell's loving relationship with her husband and mentions an aggressive encounter with paparazzi.
DOJ-OGR-00002018.jpg
This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit A' of Document 97-1, filed on December 14, 2020, in the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The page is marked with a Department of Justice production number (DOJ-OGR-00002018), indicating it is part of a larger submission in a legal proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00002010.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing (Document 97) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 14, 2020. The defense argues that the discovery provided by the government lacks contemporaneous evidence (emails, texts, diaries, police reports) implicating Maxwell in the alleged 1994-1997 conspiracy and claims that existing police reports are exculpatory rather than incriminating. Large portions of the text, specifically appearing to detail specific evidence or lack thereof, are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002004.jpg
This document is page 32 of a defense filing (Document 97) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text argues that Maxwell is not a flight risk due to intense media scrutiny, the global pandemic, and her willingness to sign irrevocable extradition waivers for the UK and France. It cites legal precedent (US v. Cirillo) supporting the use of extradition waivers as a condition for release.
DOJ-OGR-00002001.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues that she did not attempt to avoid arrest. The defense counters the government's claims by stating they would have arranged for a self-surrender if asked and that her actions during the arrest, such as moving to an interior room and having a phone wrapped in tin foil, were pre-arranged security measures to protect her from the press, not to evade law enforcement. This claim is supported by a newly obtained statement from the head of her security company.
DOJ-OGR-00001990.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Document 97) from December 14, 2020, regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application. It focuses on her strong family ties and marriage, citing redacted exhibits (B, C, F) that attest to her loving relationship with her husband and commitment to the US. The text explains that her spouse (whose name is redacted) initially did not co-sign her bail due to fear of 'ferocious media aggression' but is now coming forward with all their assets due to concerns over her treatment at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00001988.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum filed on December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It asserts that Maxwell has deep ties to the U.S., specifically through her spouse (whose name is redacted), and is supported by letters from family and friends willing to post significant financial assets as sureties. The defense argues these letters counter the 'cruel caricature' of Maxwell in the press and address the Court's previous concerns regarding her lack of dependents or ties to the country.
DOJ-OGR-00001972.jpg
This document is a legal cover letter dated December 8, 2020, from attorneys Mark Cohen and Christian Everdell to Judge Alison Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorneys are submitting a Renewed Motion for Bail under seal, providing both an unredacted version for the court and a redacted version for public filing to protect privacy and confidential financial information. The document references previous correspondence and protective orders governing discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001969.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Filing of Official Transcript' filed on December 10, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, for the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. 20 Cr. 330). Court Reporter Kristen Cai notifies the court that the transcript for a conference held on July 14, 2020, has been filed. The document outlines the timeline and procedures for attorneys to request redactions of personal identifiers (Social Security numbers, dates of birth, minors' names, financial accounts) before the transcript becomes publicly available.
DOJ-OGR-00001953.jpg
This document is page 76 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell case) filed on December 10, 2020. The Court questions Ms. Moe (Government) about whether statements made by alleged victims should be considered in the '3142 analysis' (bail determination). Ms. Moe clarifies that while victims have a right to speak under the Crime Victims Rights Act, the government is not using their testimony to support its specific motion, leading the Court to conclude it should not consider the substance of those statements for the bail analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00001949.jpg
This document is page 72 of a court transcript from the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 10, 2020. The prosecution argues to the Judge that the defendant is a serious flight risk, justifying why they did not offer her the chance to surrender voluntarily. The prosecutor also notes the defendant's lack of candor regarding finances and references separate civil litigation where defense counsel refused to accept service on the defendant's behalf.
DOJ-OGR-00001946.jpg
This is page 69 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 10, 2020. Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney is arguing before the judge regarding her continued detention, stating that the government's cited case law regarding COVID-19 risks involves dangerous felons and is not relevant to Maxwell's situation. The attorney emphasizes the impossibility of preparing for trial with only four months of discovery while unable to meet the client in person due to BOP restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00001931.jpg
This document is page 54 of a court transcript filed on December 10, 2020, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues that the defense had previously urged the government not to indict and had made it clear they were available for voluntary surrender, yet the government arrested Maxwell without prior contact. Cohen notes that the government was fully aware that his firm and Haddon Morgan represented Maxwell, and he criticizes the prosecution for trying to 'throw some more dirt' on his client in a reply brief.
DOJ-OGR-00001929.jpg
This document is page 52 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The defense attorney is arguing for the client's release on strict conditions, refuting the government's claim that the client is a flight risk or has been 'hiding out.' The attorney highlights that the client has been actively litigating civil cases since 2015 and denying impropriety regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00001920.jpg
This document is page 43 of a court transcript from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330), dated December 10, 2020. Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues that the government has unfairly introduced new facts late in the proceeding, preventing a written response. He attempts to distance his client from Jeffrey Epstein, stating she is 'not the monster' portrayed by the media and emphasizes her strong family and professional ties, noting that supporters are present on the call anonymously for safety reasons.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity