Second Circuit
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Annabi
|
Judicial precedent |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Second Circuit inadvertently unsealed court records with Maxwell's phone number unredacted. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal analysis | Discussion and interpretation of the application of § 3283 statute of limitations, referencing Su... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | The case United States v. King, where the Second Circuit upheld sealing parts of the record based... | United States | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | In *Weingarten*, the Second Circuit considered, but did not ultimately reach, the issue of whethe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | In the Palmieri case, the Second Circuit reversed a district court's decision to grant the state ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | The Second Circuit held in *Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist.* that a new statute sho... | N/A | View |
| 2024-11-25 | Legal proceeding | The Second Circuit denied Maxwell’s petition for rehearing. | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-26 | N/A | Oral argument on bail appeal | Second Circuit Court | View |
| 2021-04-26 | Legal hearing | The Second Circuit will hear oral argument on Ms. Maxwell's bail appeal. | Second Circuit | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Second Circuit affirmed Judge Preska's ruling regarding the unsealing of deposition materials. | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Second Circuit ruling to unseal civil case records | Court | View |
| 2008-01-01 | Legal case | The legal case of United States v. Joseph, in which the Second Circuit reversed a conviction for ... | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Legal ruling | The Second Circuit held in *In re Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co.* that applying an extended s... | N/A | View |
| 1995-01-01 | Legal decision | The Second Circuit rejected the defendant's reasoning in the Bahna case and upheld the conviction. | N/A | View |
| 1992-10-29 | Legal event | A Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum was dated, leading to a Second Circuit ruling on the Fifth Amen... | N/A | View |
| 1987-01-01 | Legal ruling | The Second Circuit issued a writ of mandamus in 'In re U.S.', reversing a District Court's order ... | N/A | View |
| 1976-01-01 | Legal ruling | The Second Circuit court ruling in the Papa case (533 F.2d 815). | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001802.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues against the defense's position that a co-conspirator committing similar crimes without the defendant constitutes exculpatory evidence under Brady. The Government cites multiple Second Circuit precedents to establish that evidence of a defendant's non-participation in other criminal events or lawful conduct on other occasions is irrelevant to disproving specific charged crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00001767.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 24, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues that Protective Orders can be modified as circumstances change and asserts that Ms. Maxwell did not waive her right to seek modification. The text claims the government circumvented Second Circuit processes regarding civil materials for grand jury use and cites various case laws supporting the court's power to modify protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00001758.jpg
This legal document, dated August 17, 2020, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues for the court's discretion in handling certain materials, citing legal precedent from the Second Circuit for staying civil proceedings during a related criminal case to protect Fifth Amendment rights. The filing also discusses the proper jurisdiction for interpreting a protective order from a separate civil case, suggesting the government has previously agreed that the civil court, not this criminal court, is the appropriate forum.
DOJ-OGR-00001753.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing from August 17, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document concerns a dispute over materials designated as 'Confidential' by the government, arguing that under Second Circuit precedent, they are 'judicial documents' with a right to public access. It states that Ms. Maxwell has objected to the designation and seeks to provide the materials under seal to judicial officers to resolve pending issues.
DOJ-OGR-00001748.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The court denies the defendant's request to modify a protective order that was previously entered on July 30, 2020. The court's decision is based on the original agreement between the parties, which stipulated that discovery materials provided by the government would be used solely for the defense of the current criminal case and not for any civil proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00001747.jpg
This document is a Memorandum Opinion and Order from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, dated September 2, 2020. It addresses Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order to file discovery materials under seal in civil cases. The Court adopts the Government's proposed redactions, citing the need to balance public access with factors like an ongoing grand jury investigation, and orders the parties to confer on further redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00001707.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 38) dated August 10, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for the pretrial disclosure of the identities of 'Victims 1-3,' citing legal precedents that a defendant's right to prepare a defense outweighs privacy interests when a protective order is in place. The filing asserts that because the victims are now adults and many have already spoken publicly or filed civil suits against Epstein and Maxwell, there is no risk of intimidation.
DOJ-OGR-00001604.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Document 18) from July 10, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail due to COVID-19 risks and the adequacy of the proposed bail package. The defense proposes a $5 million bond co-signed by six individuals (siblings, relatives, friends) and secured by $3.75 million in UK property, along with home detention, GPS monitoring, and travel restrictions to NY districts. A footnote cites *United States v. Boustani* to argue that private security guards are appropriate given Maxwell's circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 10, 2020, is a memorandum arguing against the detention of Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that she has rebutted the presumption of being a flight risk and that the government's argument, based on the potential for a long sentence, oversimplifies the legal standard. The document cites several legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support its position while distinguishing Ms. Maxwell's case from those cited by the prosecution (Alindato-Perez).
DOJ-OGR-00001438.jpg
This legal letter, sent from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan, protests the detention conditions of her client, Ghislaine Maxwell, at the MDC. The letter argues that the 15-minute flashlight checks are disruptive and based on spurious justifications, such as 'enhanced security'. Sternheim refutes the government's claim that Maxwell possesses a contraband eye mask and provides evidence from an intake form showing Maxwell did not express safety concerns about being in the general population, contradicting the MDC's assertions.
DOJ-OGR-00001395.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 19, 2021, by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues for a continuance (delay) of the trial for their client, Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the government's proposed trial schedule is unrealistic, especially given a recent second superseding indictment, and that proceeding would violate Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights. The filing also notes the prejudicial impact of Ms. Maxwell's continued detention and ongoing media coverage, and mentions an upcoming bail appeal hearing in the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00001245.jpg
This legal document is a filing, likely by the government, arguing that the district court should deny the defendant's 'Third Bail Motion'. The primary argument is that the court lacks jurisdiction because the defendant has a simultaneous bail appeal pending in the Second Circuit. A secondary argument is that even if jurisdiction existed, the motion should be denied because the court has already twice found the defendant to be a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001243.jpg
This document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated March 9, 2021, opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for release on bail. The Government argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction due to a pending appeal with the Second Circuit and reiterates that Maxwell poses an extreme flight risk that no conditions can mitigate. The letter references previous denials of bail on July 14, 2020, and December 28, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001170.jpg
This document is page 28 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on December 18, 2020. The Government argues against granting the defendant's bail package, asserting that she has transferred the majority of her wealth to her husband over the last five years, meaning any bond posted by him would essentially be her own money, reducing the 'moral suasion' preventing flight. The document cites legal precedent (United States v. Boustani) rejecting a 'two-tiered bail system' that favors wealthy defendants who can afford private security.
DOJ-OGR-00001126.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was not attempting to evade arrest but was following established security protocols in response to what her security guard mistakenly identified as an ambush by the press. It further explains that a cellphone was wrapped in tin foil to prevent press access after a court inadvertently released her number, not to evade law enforcement, citing her continued use of the phone and ownership of another, uncovered primary phone as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001105.jpg
This legal document outlines a series of proposed conditions for the pretrial release of Ms. Maxwell. The conditions include home confinement in New York City with GPS monitoring, supervision by Pretrial Services, surrender of travel documents, and the presence of 24/7 private security guards paid for by Ms. Maxwell. The document argues that these measures, supported by legal precedent from the Second Circuit, are sufficient to ensure she will not flee and will appear in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001069.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues for bail, claiming the government's indictment of conduct from 1994-1997 is tactical and lacks physical evidence like tapes or video. He asserts that the client has been kept in custody 'by design' and references the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00001060.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770, dated April 1, 2021) where a defense attorney argues against the government's claim that the defendant is a flight risk for changing her contact information. The attorney explains that the defendant changed her email and phone number because she was hacked and received 'strange e-mails' after the Second Circuit unsealed civil case documents—revealing her personal data—around the time of Jeffrey Epstein's arrest in August 2019. The attorney asserts she kept the hacked phone to preserve evidence for ongoing civil litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00001055.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a speaker is arguing for bail for a defendant. The speaker cites several precedent cases (Esposito, Madoff, Dreier, Deutsch, Conway, and Mattis) to demonstrate that defendants in serious cases, including organized crime, massive financial fraud, and violent acts, have been granted release on bail conditions and have consistently appeared for trial. The argument aims to persuade the judge that release on conditions is appropriate in the current case as well.
DOJ-OGR-00001051.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on April 1, 2021, where a defense attorney argues for their client's pretrial release. The attorney contends that the government has the unwavering burden to prove the client is a flight risk and has failed to do so, citing precedent from the Supreme Court and a Second Circuit case written by Judge Raggi. The attorney also informs the court that they have proactively prepared a bail package for consideration, subject to verification by Pretrial Services.
DOJ-OGR-00000981.jpg
This document is page 20 (filed page 25) of a legal motion filed on July 10, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense proposes a $5 million bond co-signed by six friends and relatives, secured additionally by $3.75 million in UK property, alongside home detention, GPS monitoring, and private security within NY districts. The text argues that COVID-19 increases her risk in detention and cites *United States v. Boustani* regarding the use of private security guards for wealthy defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00000895.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from late 2020 and early 2021 detailing proceedings in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It records Judge Alison J. Nathan's denial of Maxwell's bail application due to flight risk, citing specific charges including conspiracy to entice minors for illegal sex acts and perjury. The docket tracks correspondence between the prosecution (USA) and defense (Everdell), sealed documents, and Maxwell's subsequent filing of a Notice of Appeal after a request for an extension of time was denied.
DOJ-OGR-00000893.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for Case 21-770 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), listing entries from December 10 to December 18, 2020. It records the filing of transcripts from a July 2020 conference, an order by Judge Alison J. Nathan approving redactions for Maxwell's sealed bail application based on privacy interests and judicial efficiency, and the submission of Maxwell's renewed bail motion with numerous exhibits. Additionally, it notes the appearance of attorney Andrew Rohrbach for the government and the government's subsequent opposition to the bail application.
DOJ-OGR-00000891.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from December 2020 in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It details correspondence regarding Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the MDC and a denied request for an in camera conference regarding a renewed bail motion. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued orders balancing privacy interests with public access, ultimately allowing tailored redactions to defense letters but denying the request to keep proceedings entirely sealed or in camera.
DOJ-OGR-00000890.jpg
This document is a page from a federal court docket in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, listing entries from November 6, 2020, to December 1, 2020. It details various filings including letters regarding discovery deadlines, affidavits, mandates from the USCA dismissing an appeal, and several memo endorsements and orders by Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding discovery schedules and conditions of confinement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity