SDNY
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00020625.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket report (Case 22-1426, SDNY) detailing the sentencing and disposition of charges against a defendant (identifiable as Ghislaine Maxwell by the case number and sentence details). The defendant was sentenced to 240 months (20 years) imprisonment and fined $750,000 for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. The document also lists several terminated counts, noting which were dismissed and one count (2ss) where the defendant was acquitted by a jury.
DOJ-OGR-00020476.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from June 2022 covering the sentencing phase of US v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It details orders permitting specific victims (including Virginia Giuffre, Annie Farmer, and 'Kate') to provide impact statements, notes Giuffre's medical inability to attend in person, records the sentencing hearing held on June 28, 2022, and grants a motion by the NY Times to unseal juror questionnaires.
DOJ-OGR-00020435.jpg
This document is a court docket from the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from October 20-22, 2021. It records efforts by media organizations, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, to oppose the sealing of jury selection materials, ensuring public access. The central entry is a detailed order by Judge Alison J. Nathan denying the request to seal the materials and outlining the specific procedures and a comprehensive schedule for the upcoming jury selection process, including questionnaires, voir dire, and deadlines for counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00015307.jpg
This document is a 'Find Report' from Shoppers Travel, Inc. generated on April 27, 2016. It lists financial transactions (invoices) from May 19, 1999, to July 30, 1999. The ledger tracks travel-related expenses for Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and numerous associates including Emma Tayler, Julian Bicknell, and Martyn Rix. The document shows a running balance that reaches over $1.4 million by July 1999.
DOJ-OGR-00002370.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the court case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It attests that on January 25, 2021, Christian R. Everdell served a legal memorandum on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to four individuals at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The served memorandum was a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss two counts against Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002370(1).jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed on February 4, 2021, for the court case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It attests that on January 25, 2021, Christian R. Everdell served a legal motion on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to four individuals at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York via their official email addresses.
DOJ-OGR-00002333.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN on January 25, 2021. In it, Christian Everdell certifies that on that same date, he served a memorandum and accompanying exhibits via email to Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00002318.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. Signed by Nicole Simmons, it certifies that a memorandum supporting Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss several counts of her indictment was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court. The certificate confirms that notification of this filing was sent to four individuals at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00022044.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the legal case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 9, 2020. In it, Montell Figgins certifies that on April 1, 2020, they electronically filed a 'Motion to Compel' and sent courtesy copies via email to three Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Southern District of New York: Nicolas Roos, Rebekah Donaleski, and Jessica Lonergan.
DOJ-OGR-00021949.jpg
This document is a bail disposition and arraignment sheet for Tova Noel, dated November 19, 2019, related to Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. Noel pled not guilty and was released on a $100,000 personal recognizance bond with travel restrictions and a requirement for mental health evaluation. A specific handwritten condition prohibits her from contacting her co-defendant (implied to be Michael Thomas) unless counsel is present.
DOJ-OGR-00021945.jpg
This document is a court order (Form AO 199B) filed on November 19, 2019, outlining additional conditions of release for a defendant involved in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. The conditions mandate pretrial supervision, the surrender of passports, travel restrictions limited to NY, NJ, and Eastern PA, a prohibition on firearms, and a requirement for mental health evaluation and treatment.
DOJ-OGR-00021930.jpg
This legal document, filed on November 19, 2019, in the Southern District of New York, outlines the bail conditions for defendant Tova Noel. She was released on a $100,000 personal recognizance bond with several conditions, including travel restrictions, surrender of travel documents, and a specific prohibition against contacting her co-defendant without counsel present. The document also schedules future court dates, including a conference on November 25, 2019, and a preliminary hearing on December 19, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00021844.jpg
This document is page 15 (labeled 20 of 51 in the header) of a legal appellate brief filed on November 1, 2024. It argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) covering the 2001-2007 period should have prevented the USAO-SDNY from charging the Appellant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) for conduct between 2001-2004. The text cites legal precedents (*Annabi*, *Alessi*, *Papa*) regarding whether plea agreements bind other US Attorney Offices and argues the Appellant was improperly denied an evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021838.jpg
This legal document analyzes court precedent regarding whether a plea agreement in one federal district binds prosecutors in another. It argues that the 'Annabi rule' has been sharply criticized and was based on a misreading of prior cases from the Second Circuit, specifically Abbamonte, Alessi, and Papa. The document suggests that the precedent set by these earlier cases does not support the broad interpretation applied in Annabi.
DOJ-OGR-00021837.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated November 1, 2024. It analyzes the legal precedent of *Annabi* (771 F.2d 671), focusing on whether a plea agreement made with the US Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) prevents prosecution by the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The text highlights the Second Circuit's ruling that despite being counterintuitive, an agreement to dismiss counts by one district's prosecutor did not bind the United States from prosecuting in another district. This legal argument is likely being cited in the broader context of the Epstein case to discuss the validity and scope of Non-Prosecution Agreements across different federal districts.
DOJ-OGR-00021789.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing related to Case 22-1426, dated March 10, 2024. It identifies Andrew Rohrbach of the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) as the attorney presenting argument for the Appellee-Respondent. The bottom half of the page contains a 'Notice to the Bar' outlining standard procedures for obtaining audio recordings of arguments, arranging court reporters, and requesting interpreter services.
DOJ-OGR-00021783.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a court filing (Case 22-1426) dated February 22, 2024, submitted by attorney Andrew Rohrbach of the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY). Rohrbach is identifying himself as the attorney presenting argument for the Appellee-Respondent. The document includes a 'Notice to the Bar' detailing procedures and costs for obtaining audio recordings of arguments, arranging court reporters, and requesting interpreter services.
DOJ-OGR-00021754.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell should be considered a third-party beneficiary of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text cites legal precedents regarding plea agreements and asserts that the NPA's immunity for 'potential co-conspirators' extends to Maxwell for offenses between 2001 and 2007. A footnote highlights that Florida investigators interviewed victims Carolyn, Virginia Roberts, and Annie Farmer, establishing an overlap between the Florida investigation and the SDNY trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021390.jpg
This document is a timeline detailing key events from 2006 to 2020 related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It outlines actions taken by the FBI, USAO, and DOJ officials, including Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, regarding victim interviews and notifications surrounding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and state court plea. The timeline also tracks subsequent legal challenges by victims, court rulings on CVRA violations, and major developments in the case, such as Epstein's 2019 arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00019470.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket report for Case 20-3061, detailing filings and orders between August 20, 2020, and September 8, 2020. It records various legal actions including sealed documents, letter motions regarding protective orders and redactions, and memorandum opinions denying defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's requests regarding discovery and confinement conditions. The document also notes the filing of a Notice of Appeal by Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019837.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated April 1, 2021) argues that the indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell is solely a result of Jeffrey Epstein's death and the subsequent media frenzy, claiming she is being used as a scapegoat. The text highlights that Maxwell was not charged in the 2008 Florida case or the 2019 SDNY case while Epstein was alive, and criticizes the government's lack of evidence during detention hearings regarding her flight risk. A footnote notes that the indictment was superseded on March 29 to include allegations from a fourth anonymous accuser dating back to 2001-2004.
DOJ-OGR-00005550.jpg
This document summarizes the recollections of 'AK,' a Human Trafficking Coordinator, regarding potential investigations into Epstein at SDNY. AK denies that attorneys urged an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell as a 'duo,' stating the focus was on Epstein and Maxwell was only mentioned in passing. AK also denies ever meeting or speaking with attorney David Boies and has no memory of a second meeting on the subject in the summer of 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00005524.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It certifies that on October 25, 2021, Nicole Simmons electronically filed "Ghislaine Maxwell’s Response to Government’s Omnibus Motions In Limine" and that notification was sent to four individuals at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00005372.jpg
This document is page 15 of a court filing from October 22, 2021, which lists proposed questions for potential jurors in a criminal case. A comment from the defense argues that juror background questions should be handled through a written questionnaire rather than live questioning (voir dire). The defense supports this by citing precedent from high-profile cases involving Elizabeth Holmes, Robert Kelly, and Keith Rainier, and notes that a verdict in another case was overturned due to jury deceit, highlighting the need for thorough vetting.
DOJ-OGR-00005326.jpg
This document is page 4 of a proposed juror questionnaire filed in a federal criminal case on October 22, 2021. It contains standard background questions for potential jurors, along with comments reflecting a legal dispute between the defendant and the government. The defense argues for including these detailed questions in the written questionnaire, citing precedent from other high-profile cases, while the government objects, arguing the questions are inappropriate for a written form and are better suited for oral voir dire.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity