February 11, 2022
Court Order Filed
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judge Alison J. Nathan | person | 50 | View Entity |
| The Court | organization | 2003 | View Entity |
| [REDACTED] | organization | 34 | View Entity |
| the defendant | person | 996 | View Entity |
| ALISON J. NATHAN | person | 2353 | View Entity |
DOJ-OGR-00008913.jpg
This document is Page 5 of a Court Order filed on February 11, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court outlines schedules for docketing redacted filings and explicitly denies a motion by 'Juror 50' to intervene in the case regarding a post-verdict inquiry into alleged false voir dire responses. The document also references a motion by the New York Times Company to unseal juror questionnaires.
DOJ-OGR-00001744.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on August 25, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court addresses the Defendant's request regarding pretrial disclosure schedules (denied without prejudice) and conditions of confinement. Specifically, the Court denies Maxwell's request for a court order mandating her release to the general population and specific discovery access, noting that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has already modified conditions to allow her 13 hours of access to discovery materials daily.
DOJ-OGR-00009560.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request for pre-hearing discovery, characterizing it as a 'fishing expedition.' Additionally, the Court rules that 'Juror 50' will be provided a copy of his completed jury questionnaire and that the document must be unsealed (docketed), rejecting the Defendant's argument that this would taint the juror's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00001349.jpg
A court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 8, 2020. The Judge denies Maxwell's request to summon Warden Heriberto Tellez to answer questions about her confinement conditions. However, the Court orders the Government to provide written status updates every 60 days regarding Maxwell's access to legal materials, counsel, and the frequency of searches conducted on her.
DOJ-OGR-00008972.jpg
This is a court order filed on February 18, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses proposed redactions to the Defendant's motion for a new trial, rejecting specific redaction requests because the information constitutes legal arguments or is widely reported in the press. The document specifically lists page and line numbers in the Defense Brief where redactions were denied.
DOJ-OGR-00021028.jpg
This document is the final page (45) of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Judge Alison J. Nathan ruled on motions regarding multiplicity, dismissing Counts One and Five as multiplicitous with Count Three, and ordering judgment of conviction on Counts Three, Four, and Six. The document confirms the sentencing date for June 28, 2022, and explicitly links the Defendant to a decade-long conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein to groom and abuse underage girls.
DOJ-OGR-00009633.jpg
This is a court order filed on March 7, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Judge Alison J. Nathan orders a redacted individual (referred to as 'he') to give testimony pursuant to immunity statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003). The order ensures that the compelled testimony cannot be used against the witness in criminal cases, acting as a compulsion order overcoming a Fifth Amendment privilege claim.
DOJ-OGR-00008909.jpg
This is a court order filed on February 11, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Judge denies the defendant's motion to seal all documents related to her motion for a new trial in their entirety, ruling that sealing must be narrowly tailored. The document also references a motion to intervene by 'Juror 50' and mentions that media organizations have requested the unsealing of documents.
DOJ-OGR-00001749.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request to modify a protective order to disclose documents to judicial officers in other civil cases, citing a lack of good cause and noting that the relevant facts are already public. The text reveals that the Government previously issued grand jury subpoenas to an entity referred to as 'Recipient' regarding an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators.
Events with shared participants
An incident where a redacted person 'ended up upstairs with Jeff'.
Date unknown • 'upstairs'
A redacted individual repeatedly arranged for girls to be sent to Jeffrey's residence for 'work', 'massage', or to 'come over' by communicating with the witness.
2007-04-25 • Jeffrey's
LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition filed by USA regarding Discovery Disclosure and Access.
2020-08-13 • District of New York
Det Dawson and Det. Recarey interviewed a subject who gave a sworn taped statement about being taken to a house when she was seventeen, approximately a year prior.
2005-10-04 • [REDACTED] home
A subject, while being driven home, was recorded on tape and made the comment "I'm like a Heidi Fleiss."
Date unknown • Vehicle
Witness gave a massage to a redacted female individual once or twice.
Date unknown • An unspecified location ('over there').
The process of scheduling and attending visits with Jeffrey. The witness would be called when the inviting party was in Palm Beach and would then coordinate a specific time (e.g., three or four o'clock) based on their schedule and Jeffrey's.
Date unknown • Palm Beach
The process of arranging visits to see Jeffrey in Palm Beach. The interviewee would be called when Jeffrey's party was in town, and then a specific time (e.g., three or four o'clock) would be arranged by coordinating schedules.
Date unknown • Palm Beach
A redacted individual recruited or informed the speaker about giving massages to a man named Jeffrey. The speaker was told that Jeffrey sometimes likes 'topless massages' but that she would not have to do anything she didn't want to.
Date unknown • Undisclosed
A taped interview was conducted regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The name of the interviewee is redacted.
Date unknown • Not specified on this page
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event