| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Retired Police Officer
|
Employee |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
REDACTED (Supervisory Staff Attorney)
|
Professional hierarchical |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Meeting | Meetings were held with a witness from the financial institution. | Unknown | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion rega... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2021-08-04 | N/A | Preparation of the 'Nineteenth Production' of discovery materials in US v. Maxwell. | SDNY Office | View |
| 2020-08-05 | N/A | First batch of discovery provided by government to NY counsel on a hard disk. | New York | View |
| 2019-09-03 | N/A | Court Hearing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2010-06-30 | N/A | Epstein produced redacted tax returns to Jane Doe's counsel. | View |
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 45, filed on 04/01/2021) regarding a bail hearing. Defense counsel is arguing for the release of their client (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on the case ID context), asserting that while the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) gives victims a voice, it does not give them a 'veto' over a defendant's right to release. The counsel cites Judge Orenstein's opinion in *United States v. Turner* (2005) to support the argument that victim objections regarding flight risk should not automatically deny bail.
This document is page 2 of a government legal filing dated January 28, 2020, arguing against a defense request to adjourn the trial. The text references defendants 'Thomas' and 'Noel' (likely the guards on duty during Epstein's suicide), stating that the case revolves around a 'brief, fourteen-hour window' and is not complex enough to warrant a six-month delay. The government asserts it has already provided witness statements (3500 material) well in advance and notes that no search warrants were obtained nor did defendants make post-arrest statements.
Defense counsel states they have been in contact with the government eight to ten times in the past year to urge them not to bring the case.
This document argues that without further instruction, the jury might convict Ms. Maxwell based on a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance from the indictment, which would violate her constitutional rights. It cites legal precedents to support this claim.
At the request of Jeffrey Pagliuca, please see attached Ms. Maxwell's Rule 16(b)(1)(C) Disclosures.
Discussing logistics of dropping off a drive depending on a snow storm.
Regarding file sizes and request for a 64GB drive to reproduce specific ranges.
Formal letter raising 9 discovery issues, including hard drive access at MDC, missing flight logs, unredacted FBI reports, and metadata gaps.
Advising him of the hearing and asking if he would voluntarily attend.
Contemporaneous emails showing counter-proposals and negotiation tactics.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity