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-00019559.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on August 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The court denies the Defendant's request to modify a protective order, reaffirming that discovery materials produced by the Government must be used solely for the defense of the criminal action and not for any civil proceedings. The text cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) and various legal precedents regarding 'good cause' for protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00019541.jpg
This document is page 8 of a Protective Order filed on August 20, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines strict protocols for the Defendant's review of discovery materials, mandating supervision by Defense Counsel or BOP officials, and establishes rules for handling 'Highly Confidential Information' produced by the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00019539.jpg
This page documents a protective order regarding discovery procedures in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It defines 'Confidential Information' as materials containing personal details of victims and witnesses, while explicitly excluding those who have publicly identified themselves on the record. It also establishes a mechanism for Defense Counsel to challenge the Government's confidentiality designations.
DOJ-OGR-00019533.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 12 of 12 in the original filing, stamped as page 76 of a larger compilation) of a court order from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It allows Defense Counsel to apply for modifications and is prepared for the signature of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge, in New York in 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019529.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Protective Order) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 28, 2020. It outlines strict protocols for the handling of 'Highly Confidential Information' during the discovery process, specifically dictating that the Defendant may only review materials in the presence of counsel or via BOP officials, and establishing rules for showing materials to potential defense witnesses without providing them copies.
DOJ-OGR-00019526.jpg
This is page 5 of a Court Order (Protective Order) filed on July 28, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines strict protocols for handling Discovery materials, specifically prohibiting the Defense team and Potential Defense Witnesses from publicly disclosing the identities of victims or witnesses who have not already spoken publicly. It mandates that any court filings containing such identities must be filed under seal unless authorized by the Government or the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00019523.jpg
Page 2 of a Protective Order filed on July 28, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The document outlines strict protocols for handling discovery materials, mandating they be used solely for criminal defense purposes and prohibiting the defendant from copying or distributing them to anyone other than counsel. It defines 'Designated Persons' (support staff) who are permitted to view the materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019514.jpg
This document is the signature page for a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on July 27, 2020. It is ordered by Judge Alison J. Nathan and shows the agreement and consent of both the prosecution, led by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss, and the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, represented by her legal counsel. The specific nature of the order is not detailed on this page.
DOJ-OGR-00019512.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court order (Document 292) filed on July 27, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It outlines strict protocols for handling confidential discovery materials, mandating that the Defendant may only review certain materials in the presence of counsel and cannot possess copies. It also prohibits public filing of confidential information without authorization and mandates the return or destruction of discovery materials at the conclusion of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019511.jpg
This page is from a legal document filed on July 27, 2020, outlining the rules for handling "Highly Confidential Information" in a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It specifies that such information may include sexualized images and details the legal process for Defense Counsel to challenge this designation with the Government and the Court. The document also strictly limits the use of this information to the defense of the criminal action and prohibits its further dissemination.
DOJ-OGR-00019510.jpg
This document is page 9 of a protective order filed on July 27, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It establishes strict protocols for the handling of discovery materials, stating that the Defendant may only review them in the presence of counsel or via BOP officials. It further defines 'Highly Confidential Information' and restricts Potential Defense Witnesses to viewing materials via read-only platforms without receiving physical copies.
DOJ-OGR-00019508.jpg
This document is page 7 (labeled page 6 internally) of a court filing from July 2, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the protocols for handling 'Confidential Information' during discovery, specifically defining what constitutes confidential material and establishing protections for the personal identification of victims and witnesses. It also sets the procedure for Defense Counsel to challenge confidential designations.
DOJ-OGR-00019505.jpg
This document is page 4 of a Protective Order filed on July 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It defines categories of individuals permitted to access discovery materials, including 'Defense Experts/Advisors' and 'Potential Defense Witnesses.' It mandates that any 'Designated Persons' receiving such materials must sign an agreement to be bound by the terms of the Order, which Defense Counsel must retain for potential court review.
DOJ-OGR-00019501.jpg
This is the final page (page 4) of a legal letter dated July 27, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Attorneys Christian R. Everdell and Mark S. Cohen of Cohen & Gresser LLP respectfully request that the Court enter a proposed protective order for their client, Ms. Maxwell. The document was filed on July 28, 2020, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
DOJ-OGR-00019500.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 28) dated July 27, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues for a specific provision in a protective order regarding victim/witness identities. Maxwell's defense contends that they should be permitted to reference alleged victims who have already voluntarily disclosed their identities in public records or media, arguing that the government's proposed restrictions are overly broad and hinder the defense's ability to investigate and advocate.
DOJ-OGR-00019495.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 21, 2020, arguing that lawyers Boies and McCawley made prejudicial extrajudicial statements in ABC News interviews regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing quotes the lawyers describing Maxwell as a 'central figure' who 'worked hand-in-hand' with Epstein and suggesting other participants should be worried. The author requests a court order to prohibit further public comments that could damage Maxwell's right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019491.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 21, 2020, filed in case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text focuses on Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a), outlining the duty of lawyers and government agents to avoid releasing non-public information that could prejudice a fair trial. It lists seven specific subject matters that are presumptively prejudicial if disseminated publicly, including the accused's prior record, confessions, test results, witness identities, plea possibilities, inadmissible evidence, and opinions on guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00019479.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) details allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell regarding two minor victims. It describes how Maxwell participated in sexualized massages with Minor Victim-1 and facilitated her travel to New York and Florida for abuse. Additionally, it outlines incidents in 1996 in New Mexico where Maxwell groomed Minor Victim-2 (who was under 18) through activities like shopping and movies.
DOJ-OGR-00019478.jpg
This document is a page from an indictment filed on July 2, 2020, detailing charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. It describes how Maxwell enticed minor victims, specifically 'Minor Victim-1' (age 14), between 1994 and 1997. The text outlines grooming tactics used by Maxwell and Epstein, including shopping trips and movies, as well as Maxwell normalizing sexual abuse by undressing in front of the victim and being present during abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00019476.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) outlines charges against Ghislaine Maxwell regarding her role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997. It details specific acts of abuse and identifies Epstein's 'New York Residence' on the Upper East Side of Manhattan as a location where grooming and abuse occurred, including a photograph of the building.
DOJ-OGR-00019462.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket report (Case 20-3061) printed on September 18, 2020. It lists the 'USA' as the Plaintiff and details the contact information for four Assistant US Attorneys representing the government: Alex Rossmiller, Alison Gainfort Moe, Maurene Ryan Comey, and Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz. The document bears a DOJ-OGR footer, suggesting it was part of a Department of Justice release.
DOJ-OGR-00019461.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket report (SDNY) for Case 20-3061, dated September 2020. It lists numerous pending felony counts against a defendant, including conspiracy to entice minors, coercion/enticement of minors for illegal sex acts, transportation of minors for criminal sexual activity, and perjury (false declarations). The document contains a Department of Justice stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019461) and appears to be part of the legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell, given the specific nature of the charges and the case timeline.
DOJ-OGR-00019459.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents for a legal filing (Case 20-3061, Document 61) dated September 24, 2020. It lists various legal documents filed between July and September 2020, including a Superseding Indictment, motions regarding a Protective Order (PO), and a Notice of Appeal. The index highlights the back-and-forth between the Defendants ('Defts') and the Government ('Govs'), including filings related to redactions and sealed documents.
DOJ-OGR-00019453.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court order filed on September 14, 2020, granting a stay in a civil case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rules that proceeding with civil discovery would prejudice Maxwell due to her concurrent criminal prosecution (raising Fifth Amendment issues) and the restrictive detention conditions at the MDC during the COVID-19 pandemic, which hinder her ability to consult with counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00019433.jpg
This document is page 29 (labeled Page 34 of 58 in the header) of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the government is acting inconsistently by intervening to stay proceedings in the civil case 'Doe v. Indyke' to protect the criminal prosecution's integrity, while failing to do the same in 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' regarding unsealing deposition materials. The text highlights that Jane Doe alleges abuse by both Epstein and Maxwell when she was a minor.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity