Bobbi C. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
102
Very Strong
|
211 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
29
Very Strong
|
34 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Business associate |
19
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
70 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Co counsel |
7
|
7 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Business associate |
6
|
6 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
|
Professional employment |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
ANDREW ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
John M. Leventhal
|
Professional succession |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MARK S. COHEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeff Pagliuca
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
government counsel
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Curcio client
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Counsel of record
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Pagliuca
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Pretrial conference | A pretrial conference was held where counsel for the government and defendant made their appearan... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Pretrial conference | A final pretrial conference was held to discuss outstanding issues and the plan for jury selection. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Detention | Ms. Maxwell is being held at the MDC under problematic conditions, including over-management and ... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An ongoing legal case involving Ms. Maxwell, where her conditions of confinement are a point of c... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The ongoing criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States Courthouse, 4... | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Sentencing Hearing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-07-15 | Legal document service | Bobbi C. Sternheim certified the service of a legal motion with an exhibit to multiple parties in... | N/A | View |
| 2022-07-15 | Legal filing | Bobbi C. Sternheim executed a declaration requesting to be relieved as counsel for Ghislaine Maxw... | N/A | View |
| 2022-07-15 | Legal filing | Attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim filed a Motion Information Statement to be relieved as continued coun... | UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE... | View |
| 2022-07-15 | Legal filing | Attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim filed a declaration in support of a motion to be relieved from repres... | UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE... | View |
| 2022-07-15 | N/A | Court Order issued granting Bobbi C. Sternheim's motion to be relieved as counsel for Ghislaine M... | Thurgood Marshall United St... | View |
| 2022-07-07 | Legal filing | Bobbi C. Sternheim filed a Notice of Appeal for Ghislaine Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2022-07-07 | Legal filing payment | Payment of a $505.00 fee for a 'Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee' for case 20CR330-1 AJN. | U.S. District Court, New Yo... | View |
| 2022-07-07 | Legal filing | Payment of a $505.00 fee for a 'Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee' in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | U.S. District Court, New Yo... | View |
| 2022-07-07 | Legal filing | A Notice of Appeal was filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-07-07 | N/A | Payment of Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee | U.S. District Court, Manhattan | View |
| 2022-07-07 | N/A | Notice of Appeal Filed | SDNY | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Sentencing | Sentencing hearing for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Legal proceeding | A sentencing proceeding for Ghislaine Maxwell is scheduled for Tuesday, which may need to be post... | United States District Court | View |
| 2022-06-25 | Meeting | Bobbi C. Sternheim met with her client, Ghislaine Maxwell, at the detention facility. | MDC | View |
| 2022-06-24 | N/A | Filing of Document 672 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Court Record | View |
| 2022-06-24 | N/A | Filing of Document 672 (Submission Under Seal) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-24 | Legal filing | Document 672 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-06-21 | N/A | Filing of legal document regarding sentencing procedures. | Court Docket | View |
| 2022-06-15 | Legal filing | Document 662 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019729.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet (Case 21-58) detailing filings between November 6, 2020, and December 1, 2020, related to the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. Key entries include the dismissal of an appeal by the Second Circuit, orders by Judge Alison J. Nathan extending discovery deadlines, and specific orders regarding Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the MDC, including a directive involving Warden Heriberto Tellez. The document lists correspondence between the prosecution (AUSAs Comey, Moe, Pomerantz) and the defense (Sternheim) regarding discovery materials and detention conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00019728.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-58) covering filings between September 8, 2020, and November 5, 2020. It details the transmission of appeal notices, the placement of sealed documents in a vault, the appearance of attorney Bobbi Sternheim, and a series of letters between the Prosecution (AUSAs Comey, Moe, Pomerantz) and Defense (Everdell, Pagliuca) regarding disclosure delays and investigative files. The log concludes with Judge Nathan issuing an order confirming the government's Brady disclosure obligations pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act.
DOJ-OGR-00019706.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet (Page 13 of 19) for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from November 6, 2020, to December 1, 2020. It details various procedural filings including letters from the prosecution (USA) and defense regarding discovery deadlines, conditions of confinement at the MDC, and the dismissal of an appeal by the Second Circuit. Key events include Judge Nathan setting new deadlines for motions and discovery, and ordering parties to confer regarding Maxwell's request for Warden Heriberto Tellez to address her detention conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00017350.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 29, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. It identifies the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, as well as the legal counsel appearing for both the prosecution and the defense. The case number is 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
DOJ-OGR-00017334.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 28, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. It lists the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and details the legal appearances for both the prosecution (US Attorney's Office) and the defense (Haddon Morgan and Foreman, Cohen & Gresser). It also notes the presence of FBI and NYPD representatives in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00017305.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The trial took place on December 27, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, with the Honorable Alison J. Nathan presiding as District Judge. The document lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present at the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00017279.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 21, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It identifies the case number, the presiding judge (Hon. Alison J. Nathan), and lists the appearances of the legal counsel for both the prosecution (United States of America) and the defense, as well as other individuals present from the FBI and NYPD.
DOJ-OGR-00010726.jpg
This is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated June 25, 2022, concerning her client, Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim reports that the MDC has unjustifiably placed Maxwell on suicide watch, depriving her of legal materials and sleep, which prevents her from preparing for her upcoming sentencing. Sternheim asserts that both she and a psychologist have confirmed Maxwell is not suicidal and states her intent to formally request a postponement if the conditions are not changed.
DOJ-OGR-00010725.jpg
This legal letter, dated June 25, 2022, is from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim opposes a motion filed on behalf of Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein, who seek to provide oral victim impact statements at Maxwell's sentencing. The letter argues that the motion should be denied because neither Ransome nor Stein qualify as statutory crime victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
DOJ-OGR-00010600.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 9 of 68) of a legal filing from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim. The document was filed on June 24, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It is signed by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim and indicates that attachments were included and copies were sent to the Counsel of Record.
DOJ-OGR-00010599.jpg
This is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 672) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 24, 2022. The defense argues that the upcoming sentencing proceeding should not be an 'open-mike forum' and contends that individuals who do not strictly qualify as 'crime victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should be barred from giving oral testimony or having their statements read. The filing asserts that allowing non-statutory victims to speak would trample Maxwell's rights and suggests some individuals may be motivated by financial reward or media attention.
DOJ-OGR-00010596.jpg
This document is page 5 of a defense filing (dated June 24, 2022) related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the definition of 'victim' under the CVRA is narrower than sentencing guidelines and asserts that Maxwell's due process rights must be protected against new allegations in victim impact statements from accusers Annie Farmer and 'Kate' that were not cross-examined at trial. The document also attempts to impeach the credibility of Virginia Giuffre, noting she did not testify and alleging in a footnote that she failed to disclose prior abuse by a man named Ron Eppinger.
DOJ-OGR-00010594.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by the defense team (Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that specific individuals—Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant—do not qualify as 'victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) relative to the counts of conviction. The defense contends that because the federal charges specifically required the involvement of minors, and these women were either not minors or their interactions fell outside the indictment timeline, they are not statutory victims entitled to CVRA rights in this specific legal context.
DOJ-OGR-00010593.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, discusses the victim impact statements of seven women in a case involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. It argues their standing as statutory victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), noting that only Annie Farmer and Virginia Giuffre were minors during the relevant period of the charged offenses. The document contends that allegations of abuse alone are insufficient and must be directly linked to the federal offense conduct, which requires the victim to have been a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00010592.jpg
This document is a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, filed on June 24, 2022. In the letter, Maxwell formally objects to Sarah Ransome, Maria Farmer, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant being legally characterized as 'victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) for the purpose of sentencing. The defense argues these individuals do not meet the statutory requirements, specifically regarding their age at the time of alleged abuse, the timing relative to the indictment, and proximate harm resulting from the specific federal offenses of conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00010447.jpg
This document is the title page of the Sentencing Memorandum filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell on June 15, 2022, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It lists the legal counsel representing Maxwell, including attorneys from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, Cohen & Gresser LLP, and Haddon, Morgan & Foreman P.C. The document bears a Department of Justice bates stamp number DOJ-OGR-00010447.
DOJ-OGR-00010444.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, is the conclusion of a court filing, likely a sentencing memorandum. It presents a calculation for a 'Total Offense Level' of 24 and argues that the court should apply the 2003 Sentencing Guidelines, which would result in a sentencing range of 51-63 months. The document is submitted by attorneys Christian R. Everdell of COHEN & GRESSER LLP and Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00010418.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. It lists Maxwell's defense team, including attorneys from Cohen & Gresser, the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, and Haddon, Morgan & Foreman. The filing supports Maxwell's objections to the Presentence Investigation Report.
DOJ-OGR-00010413.jpg
Defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim submitted a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan on May 10, 2022, requesting a two-day extension for Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing submission due to a pre-existing travel commitment. Although the government consented to the request, Judge Nathan explicitly denied the extension via an order stamped on the document dated May 11, 2022. The sentencing remained scheduled for June 28, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00010321.jpg
Attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim writes to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case on April 1, 2022. The letter informs the court of a new Paramount Plus interview with 'Juror 50' that promises a 'bombshell revelation,' which may impact Maxwell's pending motion for a new trial. Sternheim requests a stay of any ruling until the defense and court can review the content of this interview.
DOJ-OGR-00010317.jpg
This legal document analyzes the conduct of Juror 50 during and after the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It highlights Juror 50's public revelation of his jury service on social media and his multiple false statements to the Court regarding his impartiality and willingness to follow instructions. The document argues that these actions demonstrate Juror 50's bias and inability to serve as an unbiased juror, providing grounds for a cause challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00010316.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 intentionally provided false answers during jury selection. It highlights contradictions in his testimony regarding whether his abuser (his stepbrother) was a family member and contrasts his claim of not speaking about the abuse with his decisions to speak to international media and post on social media. The document portrays the juror's explanations as unbelievable and rehearsed, suggesting a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00010315.jpg
This is page 9 of a legal filing by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, dated March 15, 2022, regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The document argues that 'Juror 50' was biased and answered voir dire questions (specifically Question 25 and 49) incorrectly regarding his history of sexual abuse because he does not identify as a 'victim' due to his healing process. The defense argues this psychological coping mechanism prevented accurate answers and demonstrates bias, reiterating objections to the Court's limitation on questioning the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010314.jpg
This legal document, from the law offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that 'Juror 50' demonstrated bias by providing false answers on a juror questionnaire. The filing disputes the juror's explanations for his answers—such as being rushed or no longer identifying as a victim of past abuse—as not credible, citing his own testimony and the content of the questionnaire itself as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00010313.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell's defense by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that Juror 50 was biased and should have been struck from the jury. The filing asserts that the juror's failure to disclose his history of sexual abuse, coupled with his incredible explanations for false statements on a questionnaire, demonstrates a bias that his own assurances of impartiality cannot overcome. The document cites legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the claim that juror bias must be determined from circumstances, not the juror's self-serving statements.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-07 | Paid | Bobbi C. Sternheim | U.S. District Cou... | $505.00 | Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee for Case 20CR330... | View |
Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Follow-up stating she is still awaiting a reply regarding legal mail and requesting a response by 10:00 am.
Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Follow-up email stating she is still awaiting a reply regarding legal mail that needs to be picked up by MDC.
Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Follow up demanding response regarding legal mail pickup by 10:00 am Wednesday.
Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Complaint about HEPA filters not working during visit, request to use corner room for visits, and notification that legal mail has not been picked up by MDC.
Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Detailed complaint about in-person visit conditions (HEPA filters broken), request to use larger corner room for future visits, and notification that legal mail has not been picked up.
Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Complaint about HEPA filters not working during visit, request to use corner room for visits, and complaint about legal mail not being picked up.
Re: [EXTERNAL] Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-506
Confirming that staff was made aware yesterday afternoon and they are 'all set'.
Re: [EXTERNAL] Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-506
Thanking the recipient.
Re: [EXTERNAL] Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-506
Requesting confirmation of arrangements for Ms. Maxwell's participation in a telephonic court conference scheduled for the next day at noon.
[EXTERNAL] Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-506
Notification of a telephonic court conference scheduled for the next day at noon and request to confirm arrangements for Ms. Maxwell's participation.
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter from defense counsel arguing against the government's opposition to limited attorney-conducted voir dire and requesting individual sequestered voir dire for jury selection, citing the high-profile nature of the case and the need to seat a fair and impartial jury.
[EXTERNAL] U.S. v. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Sending courtesy copy of ECF filing 'Response_to_Govt_voir_dire_opposition.pdf'
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter complaining about the delayed delivery of Ghislaine Maxwell's legal mail at the MDC, arguing the government's explanation is inadequate and that the delay is hindering her trial preparation.
Response in Support of Motion to Direct MDC to deliver le...
Defense argument for court intervention on mail delivery.
Support of Motion to Direct MDC to deliver legal mail
Response regarding mail delays.
[EXTERNAL] Re: 20cr330 - US v. Maxwell
List of attendees (Counsel and Family/Friends) for upcoming teleconference and in-person conference.
[EXTERNAL] U.S. v. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Sending courtesy copy of ECF filing.
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Requesting court order for MDC to provide legal mail within one day; detailing delays and potential tampering.
Concerns regarding MDC incompetence and trial preparation
Letter detailing issues with the MDC providing trial materials and the impact on Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial.
[EXTERNAL] U.S. v. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Good evening- Attached is a courtesy copy of this evening's ECF filing.
Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Sternheim informs recipients she is on VTC with Maxwell who has not received hard drive or books delivered to MDC on Tuesday. Demands explanation.
[EXTERNAL] U.S. v. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Attached is a courtesy copy of this evening's ECF filing.
[EXTERNAL] U.S. v. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Courtesy copy of evening's ECF filing.
Unknown
Sending courtesy copy of evening's ECF filing.
Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
States that per FedEx tracking, two envelopes sent by government were delivered to MDC on 10/12 at 10:26 am, but Maxwell had not received them by afternoon of 10/13.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity