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-00010311.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 was incapable of being impartial due to his own past trauma of childhood sexual abuse, which was highly similar to that of the victims in the case. The filing cites multiple legal precedents where jurors were dismissed or new trials were granted for failing to disclose such biasing personal experiences. The document further contends that Juror 50's decision to speak to the international press after the trial to 'tell his story' demonstrates his deep identification with the victims and confirms his bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010310.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 649) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, filed on March 15, 2022, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text argues that 'Juror 50' demonstrated bias by lying on a questionnaire about his own history of sexual abuse, which the defense argues closely paralleled the abuse described by victims at the trial. The filing highlights that the juror was abused by a familiar person (his stepbrother), mirroring the allegations against Epstein and Maxwell, and argues he would have been struck for cause had he been honest.
DOJ-OGR-00010309.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 15, 2022, analyzes whether a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave false answers during jury selection (voir dire). Juror 50 answered "No" to a question about whether any family member had been accused of sexual abuse, but later admitted his stepbrother had been, and that his mother had reported it to the police. The court is now considering if this false statement satisfies the legal standard (the McDonough test) and would have provided Ms. Maxwell, a party in the case, with a valid reason to have the juror removed for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00010307.jpg
This is a letter dated March 15, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues for a new trial for Maxwell, claiming that a juror, identified as 'Juror 50', provided false answers on his juror questionnaire by failing to disclose his own history of sexual abuse. The letter asserts that the juror's testimony at a subsequent hearing was not credible and that his presence on the jury was improper, warranting a retrial.
DOJ-OGR-00010289.jpg
This page contains the conclusion and signature block of a legal motion filed on March 11, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The document requests that the court vacate Maxwell's conviction and enter a judgment of acquittal. It lists the contact information for her legal defense team, including Christian R. Everdell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, and Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00010267.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing titled 'Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Post-Trial Motions,' filed on March 11, 2022, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It lists the defense attorneys representing Maxwell: Christian R. Everdell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, and Bobbi C. Sternheim, along with their respective law firms and contact information. The document bears a Department of Justice bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00010267.
DOJ-OGR-00010217.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on March 11, 2022, regarding a motion for a new trial for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The hearing's purpose, as stated by the court, is to examine the responses of 'Juror 50' to a jury selection questionnaire, following a court order from February 24, 2022. The transcript begins with counsel for the government, the defense, and Juror 50 stating their appearances for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00010216.jpg
This document is an appearance list for a court proceeding in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on March 8, 2022, in the Southern District of New York. It details the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and lists all attorneys representing the United States, the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, and Juror 50. The document also includes the case number and the court reporting agency.
DOJ-OGR-00009900.jpg
This is the signature page (page 31 of 32) of a legal filing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 9, 2022, and filed on March 11, 2022. The text concludes a motion requesting a new trial or an evidentiary hearing to examine jurors. It lists the defense counsel team (Pagliuca, Menninger, Everdell, and Sternheim) representing Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00009870.jpg
This document is the cover page of a legal motion filed on March 11, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is titled "Ghislaine Maxwell's Reply in Support of Her Motion for a New Trial" for the case United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document identifies Maxwell as the defendant and lists her legal counsel from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00009757.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 65 of 66) of a legal filing (Document 642) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It lists the defense counsel representing Ghislaine Maxwell, including Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, Christian Everdell, and Bobbi Sternheim, along with their respective law firms and contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00009693.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing, specifically 'Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial', submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 11, 2022. The case is identified as United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document lists the names and contact information for Maxwell's legal counsel from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00009623.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter filed on March 2, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense attorneys request that Maxwell's lawyers be present for an upcoming proceeding and ask for a continuance until May. The letter is signed by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and lists co-counsel Laura A. Menninger, Christian R. Everdell, and Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00009621.jpg
This document is a letter dated March 2, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, on behalf of her client Ghislaine Maxwell, to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Sternheim requests a proffer from the counsel for 'Juror 50' to explain why the juror is asserting their Fifth Amendment right, especially since the juror publicly claimed to have answered all questions honestly. In a handwritten note dated March 3, 2022, Judge Nathan denied the request, stating no grounds were offered for it.
DOJ-OGR-00009618.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 2, 2022, is a request from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The attorneys, led by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, ask the Court to postpone an important proceeding until a convenient date in May. The reason for the request is to ensure that Ms. Maxwell's lawyers can be present for the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009616.jpg
A legal letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, to Judge Alison Nathan regarding 'Juror 50.' The letter notes that Juror 50 intends to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, despite publicly claiming honesty, and that the government is seeking immunity for the juror. Maxwell's defense requests an explanation (proffer) for the Fifth Amendment assertion and the government's willingness to grant immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00009541.jpg
This document is a letter dated February 24, 2022, from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter proposes limited redactions to a court Opinion and Order in response to a prior court order. Appended to the letter is a handwritten order from Judge Nathan, dated February 25, 2022, approving the proposed redactions to ensure the integrity of a forthcoming hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009540.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated February 24, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter serves as a response to a court order issued the same day, proposing that the defense will make limited redactions to an attached Opinion and Order that was filed under a temporary seal.
DOJ-OGR-00009305.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript filed on February 24, 2022, detailing the appearances for a hearing. It identifies the legal counsel for defendants Field and Parse, as well as for a Ms. Conrad. The document also notes the presence of IRS Special Agent Christine Mazzella.
DOJ-OGR-00004746.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court concerning her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim complains about the recurring problematic conditions, over-management, and hyper-surveillance Ms. Maxwell faces at the MDC, arguing it impedes trial preparation and violates attorney-client privilege. The letter supports its claims by quoting Judge McMahon from another case, who strongly condemned the "disgusting, inhuman" conditions at the MCC and MDC and blamed the incompetence of the Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons.
DOJ-OGR-00004745.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim dated June 15, 2021, detailing complaints regarding the confinement conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. It outlines specific incidents of alleged harassment and obstruction by prison guards, including the reading of privileged legal materials, denial of water, excessive monitoring during legal visits, and technical interference with video conferencing that compromises attorney-client privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00014717.jpg
This document is the cover page for a court transcript from the jury trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20 CR 330), dated December 28, 2021. It lists Judge Alison J. Nathan as presiding, along with the appearances of the prosecution team (led by US Attorney Damian Williams) and the defense team (including attorneys from Haddon Morgan and Foreman and Cohen & Gresser). Also noted as present are representatives from the FBI and NYPD.
DOJ-OGR-00014679.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 22, 2021. It lists Judge Alison J. Nathan as presiding, details the legal teams for both the prosecution (SDNY) and the defense (Haddon Morgan and Foreman, Cohen & Gresser), and notes the presence of FBI agent Amanda Young and NYPD officer Paul Byrne. The document was filed on August 10, 2022, bearing the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00014679.
DOJ-OGR-00014659.jpg
Cover page for the official court transcript of the Jury Trial in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20 CR 330) held on December 21, 2021, before Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document lists appearances by the prosecution (US Attorney's Office) and the defense (Haddon Morgan and Foreman, Bobbi Sternheim, Cohen & Gresser), as well as the presence of FBI and NYPD representatives.
| 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