E.D.N.Y.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00023306.tif
This document, an excerpt from a legal report, discusses the handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the roles of Sloman, Villafaña, and PBPD Chief Reiter, and the subsequent review of prosecutor Acosta's actions by OPR. It analyzes whether federal victim notification laws (CVRA/VRRA) applied to state court proceedings and concludes that Acosta's deferral of victim notification to the State Attorney's Office did not constitute professional misconduct. Legal citations and quotes from individuals involved are provided to support the analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00008389.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 15, 2021, is a court filing arguing against the Defense's request for witness anonymity for Ms. Maxwell's trial. The filing contends that the Defense's concerns about publicity are common in high-profile cases and do not meet the standard for granting pseudonyms, unlike the alleged victims who have a statutory right to privacy. It heavily cites the precedent of *United States v. Rainiere*, where a similar request for anonymity for supporters was denied because the public's interest in access prevailed over privacy concerns for matters not traditionally considered private.
DOJ-OGR-00008376.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing (Document 545) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 15, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's motion to call three attorneys for victims (Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman) as witnesses, stating such testimony would be irrelevant, duplicative, or improper impeachment. Specifically regarding Jack Scarola, the document notes he represented victim 'Carolyn' in a 2008 lawsuit and before the Epstein Victims Compensation Program, facts which Carolyn already admitted during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00001788.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a court filing (likely from United States v. Maxwell based on the case number) dated October 7, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The Government updates the court on discovery progress, committing to a November 9, 2020 deadline for electronic discovery and outlining schedules for producing witness statements (Brady/Giglio materials) 4 to 8 weeks before trial. The document also argues the legal scope of the prosecution's obligations, citing case law (Avellino, Quinn) to assert that the prosecution is not responsible for knowledge held by other government agencies (like the FBI) not directly involved in the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00001687.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated July 29, 2020, presents the defense's argument against a government-proposed protective order in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends the order would impede their ability to investigate alleged victims and witnesses, citing legal precedents where individuals waived their privacy rights by making information public. The document asserts the need for a full investigation to challenge the credibility of accusers and mount an effective defense for their client, who is presumed innocent.
DOJ-OGR-00001665.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 28, 2020, is the government's argument against a defendant's request to publicly name victims of herself or Epstein. The government contends that such disclosure is inappropriate and violates victims' rights to privacy and safety, citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act and several legal precedents. The filing supports a proposed protective order that would prevent public identification of victims while still allowing the defense to prepare for trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001624.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request for bail. It contends the defendant is a significant flight risk due to substantial financial resources, international ties, and a lack of connection to the United States. The document also asserts that the COVID-19 pandemic is not a sufficient reason for release, citing several legal precedents from New York district courts that have denied similar applications.
DOJ-OGR-00001593.jpg
This page is from a legal memorandum filed on July 10, 2020, arguing for the pretrial release of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense contends that the government has failed to prove she is a flight risk or that no conditions exist to assure her appearance, citing the Bail Reform Act and Supreme Court precedent (Salerno) establishing liberty as the norm and detention as an exception. A footnote references a separate letter regarding poor prison conditions, including lack of visitation and legal access, which the defense argues are 'compelling reasons' for release.
DOJ-OGR-00001496.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing from the U.S. Attorney's office, dated July 2, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The government argues that the defendant is an extreme flight risk and that no conditions of bail would ensure their presence in court. Citing several legal precedents, the filing respectfully requests that the defendant's application for bail be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00001231.jpg
This legal document is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 28, 2020. The order explicitly denies the renewed motion for release on bail filed by the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The court's decision references a precedent from the 2018 case United States v. Raniere.
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on June 30, 2020, outlines the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing. It cites several legal precedents to argue that a court is not required to reopen such a hearing unless new, material information is presented that was not known at the time of the original hearing. The document is part of a discussion regarding a defendant's renewed motion for bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001192.jpg
This page from a defense filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues that the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell relies entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of three accusers, specifically noting that Counts Two and Four rely solely on 'Minor Victim-1'. The defense asserts that the government only began issuing subpoenas regarding Maxwell after Jeffrey Epstein's death, suggesting the case was assembled 'after the fact'. A large block of text regarding specific government evidence is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00000997.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant should be denied bail and home confinement. The prosecution contends the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her access to over $20 million in financial resources, her refusal to account for this wealth, and her ability to maintain relationships remotely. The document cites several legal precedents to argue that GPS ankle-bracelet monitoring is not a reliable means of preventing flight.
DOJ-OGR-00000969.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (likely a memorandum in support of bail) arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell. It asserts that the government has failed to prove she is a flight risk or that no conditions can assure her appearance, citing the Bail Reform Act and Supreme Court precedent favoring liberty. It also references the COVID-19 crisis and a footnote cites a letter regarding poor prison conditions hindering legal defense preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00000959.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 16, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases, primarily criminal cases with the United States as a party, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cited cases span from 1978 to 2020 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
DOJ-OGR-00000867.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 22, 2021, that discusses the legal standards for pretrial detention and the reopening of bail hearings. It references the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), which allows for reopening a hearing with new, material information, and also cites case law (Raniere, Havens, Rowe, Petrov) to establish that a court has inherent authority to reconsider its own bail decisions even without new evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00000813.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court filing from July 18, 2019, denying aspects of Jeffrey Epstein's bail proposal. The Court argues that the defense's home confinement plan would require excessive judicial oversight and that private security is less secure than actual jail. The Court also dismisses Epstein's offer to waive extradition rights as an 'empty gesture' that no foreign country would likely honor if he fled.
DOJ-OGR-00000810.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 18, 2019, argues against the release of the defendant, Mr. Epstein, pending trial. It presents evidence that he is a serious flight risk due to his wealth, international travel, and significant ties to Brazil, a country without an extradition treaty with the U.S. The document also cites allegations of witness tampering made by victims' attorney David Boies and concludes that no conditions, including an armed guard, would be sufficient to ensure Mr. Epstein's appearance at trial, labeling him a danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00000337.jpg
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing, argues against a defendant's proposal to hire private security guards as an alternative to pretrial detention. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit and other district courts to assert that such arrangements create a conflict of interest, magnify flight risks, and foster unequal treatment based on wealth, which is contrary to the principles of the Bail Reform Act. The document highlights past cases where wealthy defendants on private security details violated the terms of their release.
DOJ-OGR-00000336.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 12, 2019, is a memorandum arguing against a defendant's proposal for bail involving home confinement, electronic monitoring, and a private security force. The prosecution contends that these measures are insufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance in court, citing numerous legal precedents that question the security, fairness, and practicality of such "private jail" arrangements. The document asserts that a private security firm cannot replicate the controlled environment of a federal facility and that allowing wealthy defendants to fund their own detention is legally problematic.
DOJ-OGR-00021097.jpg
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, is a page from a court filing that argues about the scope of plea agreements. It discusses whether a plea agreement made with a U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district can prevent prosecutions in other districts, citing several legal precedents like United States v. Alessi and United States v. Russo. The document uses Leslie Groff, an assistant to Epstein, as an example and analyzes factors such as whether other USAOs or the Department of Justice were involved in the negotiations.
DOJ-OGR-00021091.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues against allowing the Government to bypass the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by moving jurisdictions ('parachuting into a new circuit'). It cites various legal precedents to argue that the court should apply the law of the circuit where the violation or agreement occurred (referencing the 11th Circuit) to protect the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights in the plea-bargaining process.
DOJ-OGR-00021088.jpg
This page from a legal document argues that the Court's precedents do not require applying the 'Annabi' canon to agreements formed outside its Circuit. It cites several cases to support the position that federal plea agreements should be analyzed under general choice-of-law principles for contracts, highlighting a magistrate judge's questioning of the current practice.
DOJ-OGR-00021059.jpg
This document is page 12 of 113 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (U.S. v. [Defendant]) cited in the main brief, along with their corresponding page numbers. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021059).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity