Judge McMahon
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
prosecutor
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial deference |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Netburn
|
Professional judicial disagreement |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Assistant U.S. Attorney
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A recent sentencing in the case of United States v. Tiffany Days where defense counsel described ... | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge McMahon issued a modification order regarding a protective order. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ex parte modification of the protective order by Judge McMahon. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Inmate Tiffany Days detailed a 'feces flood' and sewage conditions to Judge McMahon. | MDC | View |
| 2021-06-25 | N/A | Judge McMahon modified a protective order to allow Government investigation. | Court | View |
| 2021-04-16 | N/A | Judges McMahon and Netburn ruled on the application of the Martindell standard. | Court | View |
| 2019-04-09 | N/A | Conference with Judge McMahon | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-04-09 | N/A | Second proceeding concerning Government application to modify protective order. | Court | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Legal ruling | Judge McMahon issued a sealed order and opinion granting the Government's application to modify a... | Court | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Ex parte hearing | Judge McMahon held a second ex parte hearing where she questioned the Government about its contac... | Court | View |
| 2019-04-09 | N/A | Hearing before Judge McMahon regarding modification of protective order. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2019-04-09 | N/A | Hearing before Chief Judge McMahon where AUSA allegedly misled the court about prior contacts wit... | SDNY Court | View |
EFTA00029816.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on January 25, 2021, seeking to suppress evidence obtained via subpoena from the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner. The defense argues that the government made false representations to Judge McMahon to bypass a civil protective order and obtain confidential deposition transcripts, alleging collusion between the civil plaintiff's lawyers (Boies Schiller) and federal prosecutors. The document details the history of the civil defamation case, specific deposition questions regarding sexual acts and Epstein, and the procedural history of the protective order modification.
EFTA00029100.pdf
This legal filing is a Reply Memorandum by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing for the suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges based on government misconduct. The defense asserts that prosecutors misled Chief Judge McMahon about the extent of their prior coordination with civil attorneys (Boies Schiller Flexner) to obtain a grand jury subpoena, thereby circumventing a civil protective order. The document details a specific meeting on February 29, 2016, where civil attorneys 'pitched' the prosecution of Maxwell and provided documents, including flight records (though the specific flight data is not listed in this text), which the prosecution later failed to disclose to the judge.
EFTA00028929.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, requesting the suppression of evidence obtained from a government subpoena to Boies Schiller and dismissal of counts five and six. It includes a Table of Contents, Table of Authorities citing various legal cases and rules, and a Table of Exhibits detailing communications and notes related to the case from 2016 to 2021, many involving AUSAs and individuals like Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley. The memorandum argues that the government misled the court and that the evidence should be suppressed due to due process violations.
EFTA00010708.pdf
An email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York dated April 9, 2019. The email discusses productive legal proceedings involving Judge McMahon and Judge Netburn, specifically regarding unsealing orders and related materials in civil cases (referenced by case numbers 17 Civ 7433 and 17 Civ 0616). Attachments include memoranda, orders, and a transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00001418.jpg
This legal document is an appeal to a court regarding the pretrial detention conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing argues that her constitutional right to prepare for trial is being violated by conditions equivalent to solitary confinement, including sleep deprivation, intrusive searches, and poor sanitation. The document urges the court to intervene, suggesting her temporary release on bond as a remedy.
DOJ-OGR-00004804.jpg
This document is page 20 of 21 of a court order filed on June 25, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence, ruling that the Government did not violate her due process rights when it obtained evidence from her earlier civil case via a modification to a protective order signed by Judge McMahon. The Court rejects Maxwell's arguments based on the 'Martindell' and 'Franks' legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00004803.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court order filed on June 25, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena, rejecting her arguments based on the 'Franks' and 'Martindell' legal precedents. The text affirms a previous decision by Judge McMahon to modify a protective order to allow a secret Government investigation into a high-profile matter, noting that while Judge Netburn disagreed, McMahon's decision had a substantial basis and is entitled to deference.
DOJ-OGR-00004802.jpg
This page is from a legal ruling in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The court rejects arguments for suppression under 'Franks,' ruling that even if the Government failed to disclose a 2016 meeting with the law firm BSF to Judge McMahon, she would still have granted the modification of the protective order due to 'extraordinary circumstances' and 'significant public interest.' The text establishes that protective orders do not guarantee immunity from criminal subpoenas.
DOJ-OGR-00004800.jpg
This court document (page 16 of a filing from June 2021) denies Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that the Government deliberately misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon regarding communications with the Boies Schiller firm (BSF). The court rules that the prosecutor's failure to mention a 2016 email/meeting with Giuffre's attorneys during an April 2019 hearing was likely because the question was understood to refer only to the *current* investigation, not all historical contacts. The text references the standard set by *Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.* regarding coordination between civil litigants and criminal prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00004797.jpg
This is page 13 of a court filing (Doc 307) from the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on June 25, 2021. The text denies Maxwell's request to suppress evidence, stating she failed to prove a due process violation or justify the use of the Court's supervisory authority. The Court argues that the Government's omission of information regarding past communications with BSF (Boies Schiller Flexner) does not constitute the 'extreme misconduct' or 'willful disobedience of law' required for suppression.
DOJ-OGR-00004788.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 25, 2021, describes a court proceeding from April 9, 2019, where Judge McMahon granted the Government's application to modify a protective order. The judge found extraordinary circumstances allowed the modification, enabling the Government to obtain information for its investigation into high-profile targets, including Maxwell, without tipping them off. Consequently, the law firm BSF turned over records from a civil litigation, including transcripts of Maxwell's depositions, to the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00004746.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court concerning her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim complains about the recurring problematic conditions, over-management, and hyper-surveillance Ms. Maxwell faces at the MDC, arguing it impedes trial preparation and violates attorney-client privilege. The letter supports its claims by quoting Judge McMahon from another case, who strongly condemned the "disgusting, inhuman" conditions at the MCC and MDC and blamed the incompetence of the Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons.
DOJ-OGR-00020336.jpg
This page is from a legal appeal filed on May 17, 2021, arguing for the temporary release of Ghislaine Maxwell on bond. The defense claims her constitutional rights are being violated by 'squalid' pretrial detention conditions, including sleep deprivation (lights every 15 minutes), intrusive searches, and isolation, which prevent her from effectively preparing for trial. The document references a plea by Judge McMahon and cites a separate case (US v. Tiffany Days) as precedent or context.
DOJ-OGR-00020332.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated May 17, 2021, arguing against the mistreatment of Ms. Maxwell, specifically regarding sleep deprivation and accusations about hygiene. The defense argues that the government misrepresented facts by claiming Maxwell caused a smell in her cell by not flushing, while the defense asserts the smell was due to MDC infrastructure issues. This claim is supported by testimony from another inmate, Tiffany Days, who described a 'feces flood' at the facility.
Application for modification
Request to modify protective order ex parte.
Conditions at MDC
Explained sewage conditions and a 'feces flood'.
Unknown
Statements made by the prosecutor, the knowledge of which is being debated.
Inquiry on contacts with Boies Schiller
Asked Government to explain contacts between USAO and Boies Schiller prior to subpoena issuance.
Response regarding contacts
Informed Judge about communications after the current investigation began.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity