Event Details

December 14, 2020

Description

Filing of Document 102 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

Participants (4)

Name Type Mentions
GOVERNMENT organization 2805 View Entity
defendant person 747 View Entity
Defense organization 240 View Entity
GHISLAINE MAXWELL person 9575 View Entity

Source Documents (3)

DOJ-OGR-00020055.jpg

Legal Filing (Bail Application/Memorandum) • 522 KB
View

This document is page 35 of a legal filing (Document 102) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense asserts she is not a flight risk and argues that her current detention at the MDC constitutes 'de facto solitary confinement' under conditions rivaling a Supermax prison, which impairs her ability to prepare her defense. The text cites United States v. Orta regarding bail standards and claims wardens have noted the unprecedented nature of her restrictive regime.

DOJ-OGR-00020077.jpg

Court Filing (Government Detention Memo/Response to Bail Motion) • 818 KB
View

This page from a government filing (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant is a flight risk. It highlights her time hiding in New Hampshire, her foreign ties to the UK and France, and the difficulty of extradition. A footnote reveals that in 2018, despite being married, both the defendant and her spouse listed their status as 'single' on bank trust account forms, which the government cites as evidence of a lack of candor.

DOJ-OGR-00020081.jpg

Court Filing / Legal Memorandum (Page 18 of a brief, Document 102 in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) • 747 KB
View

This document is page 18 of a government filing (Document 102) from June 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues against bail by highlighting flight risks, specifically noting that France does not extradite its own citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and arguing that any 'anticipatory waiver' of extradition the defendant might sign regarding the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable under UK law (referencing the Extradition Act of 2003 and U.S. v. Stanton). The prosecution asserts that such waivers are meaningless until a defendant is physically present before a British judge.

Related Events

Events with shared participants

Notice of Appearance as Substitute Counsel filed on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell

2021-03-30 • 02nd Circuit Court of Appeals

View

A shipment discussed in court, sent from Ghislaine Maxwell to Casey Wasserman. The event is stated to have occurred in 'October'.

Date unknown

View

LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.

2020-07-29

View

The defense at trial focused on the credibility of victims who testified against the defendant.

Date unknown

View

Filing or processing of the Reply Memorandum in Support of Third Motion for Bail

2021-04-01 • Federal Court (Implied)

View

Government conducted multiple in-person interviews with Minor Victim-4, concluding near the end of January 2021.

2021-01-31

View

Government conducted additional investigation to corroborate Minor Victim-4, including interviewing additional witnesses, reviewing documents, and subpoenaing additional records.

2021-03-31

View

Filing of Document 172-1 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

2021-03-23 • US District Court

View

Filing of Document 82 in Case 20-3061

2020-10-02 • Court

View

Arraignment. Defendant entered plea of Not Guilty. Trial set for July 12, 2021.

2020-07-14 • Video Conference / Telephone

View

Event Metadata

Type
Unknown
Location
Court
Significance Score
5/10
Participants
4
Source Documents
3
Extracted
2025-11-20 20:40

Additional Data

Source
DOJ-OGR-00020055.jpg
Date String
2020-12-14

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event