Boies Schiller
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Client |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Farmer
|
Client |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROSSMILLER
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney’s Office
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Meeting | Ms. Farmer first met with the Boies Schiller firm when they were representing Virginia Roberts. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hiring | Ms. Farmer hired the Boies Schiller firm. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Two civil depositions of Ghislaine Maxwell were conducted by Boies Schiller in the case of Giuffr... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The Government obtained evidence from Boies Schiller via a judicially authorized grand jury subpo... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Chief Judge McMahon permitted the Government to share a specific court order with Boies Schiller,... | Court | View |
| 2021-04-23 | Court order | Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the Government's redaction requests and ordered the Defendant and ... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00003047.jpg
This document is page 113 of a legal filing by the Government in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The Government argues that Maxwell lacks standing to challenge the seizure of materials (specifically deposition transcripts) from the law firm Boies Schiller because she had no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in them and voluntarily participated in the deposition. Additionally, the Government asserts that even if she had standing, the evidence should not be suppressed because the Government acted in 'good faith' pursuant to a court order.
DOJ-OGR-00003041.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a motion from the defendant, Maxwell. The text argues against the Government's position by citing legal precedents like Palmieri and Martindell and contrasting the differing rulings of two judicial officers, Judge Netburn and Chief Judge McMahon, on the matter of sealing orders and grand jury secrecy. The core issue revolves around whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the Government's actions, with Maxwell siding with Judge Netburn's finding that the Government's arguments were 'unpersuasive'.
DOJ-OGR-00003040.jpg
This document is page 106 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text details the Government's argument that it did not circumvent the 'Martindell' legal standard when seeking evidence previously under protective orders, specifically referring to a subpoena issued to the law firm Boies Schiller. It notes that Judges McMahon and Netburn ruled that the Government had demonstrated 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the release of testimony to the grand jury despite previous protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00003037.jpg
This legal document is the Government's response arguing against Defendant Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence. The Government asserts that it lawfully obtained materials from the law firm Boies Schiller via a grand jury subpoena, following the correct legal procedure under the Martindell precedent by getting judicial authorization to modify a protective order. The document contends that Maxwell's motion is based on incorrect facts and law and should therefore be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00003035.jpg
This document is a page from a 2021 court filing detailing the procedural history regarding the unsealing of documents in the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil case. It describes Magistrate Judge Netburn's 2019 denial of a Government application to modify a protective order, citing a lack of compelling need, and notes the subsequent reassignment of the case to Judge Preska, who ordered materials unsealed in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00003034.jpg
This legal document details a ruling by Chief Judge McMahon concerning a government investigation related to a civil lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. The judge concluded that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, did not improperly instigate the government's investigation and, due to "extraordinary circumstances," granted the government's request to access certain materials previously under a protective order. The ruling permitted the Government to share a specific court order with Boies Schiller to aid its investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003031.jpg
This legal document page, filed on April 16, 2021, details discussions from an April 9, 2019 hearing. Chief Judge McMahon questions the Government's request for materials from a civil libel case involving Maxwell, expressing concerns about potential criminal proceedings and the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. The judge also probes into prior contacts between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO-SDNY) and the law firm Boies Schiller related to the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003029.jpg
This legal document page, filed on April 16, 2021, describes court proceedings from March 2019. Following the death of Judge Sweet, Chief Judge McMahon took over the case and held a hearing on March 26, 2019, to question the Government about its application and why the law firm Boies Schiller had not sought to be relieved from a protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00003028.jpg
This document describes the Government's efforts to obtain materials from the law firm Boies Schiller via grand jury subpoenas for a criminal investigation (implied U.S. v. Maxwell). Due to the covert nature of the investigation, the defendant was not notified. Boies Schiller complied with non-protected materials but required court intervention (from Judges Sweet and Netburn) to modify protective orders in civil cases (including Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein) to release protected documents, which the Government argued for in sealed letters submitted around February 28, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00003026.jpg
This court document outlines the procedural history of the civil litigation between Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell, including deposition dates in 2016 and a settlement in 2017. It details how the USAO-SDNY formally opened its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and co-conspirators in late November 2018, explicitly crediting Julie K. Brown's reporting in the Miami Herald as the catalyst. The document also clarifies that a specific prosecutor, 'AUSA-1', was not involved in opening this 2018 investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003025.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, recounts events from 2016 concerning the civil litigation between Giuffre and Maxwell. It details the process of establishing a protective order for discovery materials, initiated by Maxwell's motion on March 2, 2016, contested by Giuffre's counsel (Boies Schiller), and ultimately entered by Judge Robert W. Sweet on March 18, 2016. The document also asserts that the USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell in 2016 and that the government has no record of email communication between AUSA-1 and Boies Schiller attorneys after May 3, 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00003024.jpg
This legal document describes a February 2016 meeting where attorneys presented information to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA-1) about individuals connected to Epstein, with a focus on Maxwell. It asserts that because this meeting pre-dated the depositions central to the current indictment, the attorneys could not have alleged perjury related to those specific depositions at that time. The document also notes AUSA-1's lack of recall regarding specific perjury discussions involving Maxwell and details the government's subsequent review of AUSA-1's emails for related communications.
DOJ-OGR-00003022.jpg
This legal document, filed by the prosecution, refutes the defendant's (Maxwell's) motion which alleges collusion between the law firm Boies Schiller and the U.S. Government. The prosecution argues that the defendant's narrative is false, stating that the perjury investigation began in late 2018, years after the meetings between Boies Schiller and a former AUSA, and that this AUSA had no involvement in the decision to open the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003017.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in which the prosecution (Government) argues against a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss her indictment due to pre-indictment delay. The Government cites several legal precedents (Pierre-Louis, Burke, Carbonaro) to argue that the defendant has failed to show the delay was improper or for a tactical advantage. The document also addresses Maxwell's specific claim that the Government delayed the indictment to benefit from a separate civil litigation involving Giuffre, a claim the Government refutes.
DOJ-OGR-00004907.jpg
This document is a page from a sealed court transcript filed on July 2, 2021, as part of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The transcript captures a dialogue between the Court and attorney Mr. Rossmiller regarding the definition of confidential materials involving plaintiff Virginia Roberts and a subpoena issued to the law firm Boies Schiller. The discussion focuses on privilege, privacy interests, and a proposed order submitted to Judge Sweet.
DOJ-OGR-00004897.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sealed case, filed on July 2, 2021. In the transcript, the judge questions a government representative, Mr. Rossmiller, about a procedural issue: why the government has filed a motion for relief from a protective order on behalf of a third party, rather than the third party's own law firm, Boies Schiller, filing it. The judge expresses skepticism about this arrangement and asserts their judicial authority, referencing the Martindell case as applicable precedent.
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-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-00005546.jpg
This document summarizes a conference call held on February 11, 2021, with Amanda Kramer (AK) regarding her recollections of a meeting on February 29, 2016. During the 2016 meeting, attorneys Pete Skinner, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger presented information to AK, who was then a prosecutor, advocating for the SDNY to open a criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The memo details AK's limited memory of the meeting, the roles of the attorneys, and the mention of civil lawsuits, including the 'Guiffre v. Maxwell' case.
DOJ-OGR-00014484.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that the witnesses (specifically naming Jane and Annie) were motivated by financial gain, noting they hired lawyers like Robert Glassman and communicated with firms like Boies Schiller to file civil suits and claims with the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund. Menninger emphasizes that cooperation with the government was advised as a way to help their civil cases, resulting in them receiving millions of dollars.
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_021860.jpg
This document is page 37 of a rough draft deposition transcript stamped by House Oversight. The witness is being questioned by Mr. Simpson regarding which attorneys they held a 'common interest privilege' with as of December 30, 2014. The witness identifies Brad Edwards, attorneys from Boies Schiller (representing Virginia Roberts), and Mr. Scarola (representing Brad Edwards).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity