BSF
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria Farmer
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Accuser-2
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-05 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 72 in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, arguing for the unsealing of grand jury transcri... | N/A | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Transfer of records | Following Judge McMahon's order, BSF turned over its records from the civil litigation to the Gov... | N/A | View |
| 2005-04-01 | Investigation | An unspecified activity was conducted with the assistance of BSF. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010604.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court filing (Document 672) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, submitted by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley. It contains a victim impact statement (likely from a testifying witness) describing the 'retraumatization' caused by the trial process, cross-examination, and Maxwell's refusal to admit guilt. The author urges Judge Nathan to consider the ongoing suffering of the victims and their families when determining Maxwell's prison sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00032304.jpg
This Palm Beach Police Department incident report, dated February 17, 2006, documents an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It details an interview with Haley Robson regarding her encounters with Epstein, and outlines several investigative steps taken in March and April 2005. These steps include drafting subpoenas for phone records, conducting surveillance on Epstein's property at 358 El Brillo, confirming his valid concealed weapons permit, and identifying an item from his trash as a sex toy by consulting an online retailer.
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-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-00004791.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Document 307 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated when the Government used her civil deposition testimony in her criminal trial. The text asserts that civil protective orders do not prevent testimony from being used in subsequent criminal proceedings and that Maxwell was free to plead the Fifth during the original civil case but chose not to. It also addresses an argument regarding the law firm BSF turning over transcripts.
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-00004786.jpg
This page from a 2021 court filing details a February 29, 2016, meeting between the Government (AUSA) and Virginia Giuffre's attorneys, where Maxwell was identified as Epstein's 'head recruiter.' It discusses a protective order issued shortly after that meeting which prevented the sharing of discovery documents with law enforcement without a court order. It also addresses a dispute regarding an alleged second meeting in the summer of 2016, which the Government denies occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00004740.jpg
This page from a court order addresses two requests by the defendant, Maxwell. The court denies Request 9 regarding forensic analysis of a journal, deeming the arguments speculative and improper for a Rule 17(c) subpoena, and denies Request 10 for a pair of boots as moot because the government has already agreed to make them available for inspection.
DOJ-OGR-00004739.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated June 4, 2021, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's request to access the entirety of a diary written by Minor Victim-2. The court notes that the diary entries stopped shortly after the victim met Jeffrey Epstein and do not reference Maxwell or later trips with Epstein. The court rejects Maxwell's arguments based on Federal Rules of Evidence 106 and 612, stating that the journal's relevance is currently limited to potential impeachment.
DOJ-OGR-00004738.jpg
This is page 2 of a court order filed on June 4, 2021, in the case United States v. Maxwell. The court is addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's request to subpoena the entire journal of 'Minor Victim-2.' The court rejects Maxwell's arguments, characterizing the request as a 'fishing expedition' and noting that impeachment material is generally not obtainable via Rule 17(c) subpoena prior to trial. The document also notes that 'BSF' (likely legal counsel for the victim) has stated the unproduced portions of the journal do not mention Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002842.jpg
This is a court order from the Southern District of New York in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated March 26, 2021. Judge Alison J. Nathan orders that redactions on a letter from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP be removed unless the Government objects by March 29, 2021. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp indicating it was processed as part of a Department of Justice release.
DOJ-OGR-00002818.jpg
This legal filing argues against a subpoena issued by the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) to BSF, claiming the requested documents are either procurable from the government or are items (boots and photographs) better produced at trial if relevant. The document specifically mentions photographs connecting the Defendant, Virginia Giuffre, and Prince Andrew at a London townhome, as well as items related to Annie and Maria Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00002883.jpg
This legal document, dated March 22, 2021, is a submission by Sigrid S. McCawley arguing against a defendant's motion to subpoena evidence from a third party, BSF. The document contends that the requested materials—including communications, a Grand Jury subpoena, cowboy boots, and photographs involving individuals like Annie Farmer, Virginia Giuffre, and Jeffrey Epstein—are either obtainable from the government or not relevant enough to require pre-trial production. The author concludes that the defendant's motion should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00002897.jpg
This is page 8 of a court filing (Document 195) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The Government argues against the defendant's attempt to issue a subpoena to 'BSF' (Boies Schiller Flexner), characterizing it as an improper 'fishing expedition' for victim information and impeachment material that violates the 'Nixon test.' The Government also notes that the defendant failed to file a required response by the April 2, 2021 deadline.
DOJ-OGR-00032854.jpg
This Palm Beach Police Department incident report, dated April 20, 2006, details investigative activities from late March and early April 2005 related to Jeffrey Epstein. The report documents a conversation with Haley Robson about her interactions with Epstein, the drafting of subpoenas for phone records, surveillance conducted on Epstein's property at 358 El Brillo, and the identification of an item from a trash pull. It also notes a check on Epstein's concealed weapons permit and online business queries.
DOJ-OGR-00002880.jpg
This document is a legal letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing against a subpoena issued by the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) to the law firm BSF. The author argues that requests for materials related to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program (EVCP) and communications between BSF and the U.S. Attorney are irrelevant to the charges, protected by work-product privilege, and constitute a 'fishing expedition' intended to support a false narrative of collusion. The document specifically details Requests 1, 3-5, 8, and 12.
DOJ-OGR-00002879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing arguing that a subpoena issued by a defendant should be quashed. The filing contends that the subpoena fails to meet the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), as established in the case United States v. Nixon, because it is an overly broad "fishing expedition" seeking "all communications" with various individuals from the law firm Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP.
DOJ-OGR-00002816.jpg
This legal document, dated March 22, 2021, is a filing in a criminal case arguing against the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) discovery requests. The filing contends that requests for communications about co-conspirator Jean Luc Brunel, fee agreements with victims Annie and Maria Farmer, Annie Farmer's complete teenage journal, and materials from the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program are irrelevant and improper 'fishing expeditions' for impeachment material. The document cites case law to assert that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate the relevance and admissibility of the requested evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002815.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing arguing against a defendant's subpoena requests, asserting they fail to meet the Nixon standard for admissibility and relevance. The text specifically challenges requests for materials from the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program and communications between the firm BSF and the U.S. Attorney, characterizing them as fishing expeditions or irrelevant work product.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015614.jpg
This email from Susan Moss, Judicial Assistant to Judge Thomas M. Lynch IV, conveys court rulings in the case of Edward & Cassell v. Dershowitz. The judge quashed a subpoena against the law firm Boies Schiller but granted parts of a subpoena regarding 'Jane Doe #3,' while establishing strict protocols for a future deposition, including a 4-hour limit and the requirement of a Defendant-paid special master to rule on objections.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015608.jpg
This is page 10 of a legal filing, specifically an objection to a subpoena in a Florida defamation action (likely related to Alan Dershowitz). 'Jane Doe No. 3' is arguing to quash requests for her personal financial information and privileged communications with her legal counsel, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (BSF). The document cites Florida case law regarding attorney-client privilege and references specific discovery requests asking about her media interactions regarding Epstein, Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity