Event Details

This document is page 15 of a Government memorandum filed on July 13, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The prosecution argues against granting bail, citing that the MDC is adequately handling COVID-19 risks and referencing legal precedents where bail was denied despite the pandemic. A footnote emphasizes the Government's position that the defendant has the financial means to flee the country and that pandemic travel restrictions would not prevent her flight.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger. The defense attorney questions the consistency of Jane's memory regarding her first encounter with Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting she fabricated a memory recently that she did not possess in December 2019. The dialogue also references a meeting between Jane and the government in February 2020.

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.

This document is the signature page (Page 11 of 12) of a legal filing submitted on October 18, 2021, by the defense team for Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorneys argue that the Government failed to comply with Rule 404(b) notice deadlines (originally May 28, extended to October 11), depriving Maxwell of the chance to litigate properly, and they request the Court exclude this belated evidence. The document lists the contact information for defense attorneys from three different law firms.

This document is page 14 of a legal filing from May 25, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the USAO-SDFL does not protect the current defendant under the Double Jeopardy Clause because the NPA was merely an agreement between parties, not a judicial adjudication of facts. The text cites *United States v. Cambindo Valencia* to distinguish how plea agreements affecting third parties (like Jesus and Rosalinda Losada) operate legally.

This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on when Farmer hired legal counsel, establishing that she spoke to attorneys in 2016 but formally hired the Boies Schiller firm (specifically Ms. McCawley) prior to meeting with the government in September 2019. The text confirms these attorneys filed both a civil lawsuit and documents for the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund on her behalf.