Event Details

This document is the second page of a letter filed on August 6, 2025, by a victim in the Epstein/Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The author expresses deep frustration with the DOJ and FBI regarding the lack of transparency, the sealing of documents, and the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison. The victim demands access to evidence seized from Epstein's properties, supports Senator Wyden's financial investigation, and questions the official narrative of Epstein's suicide.

This document is a page from a legal filing in the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. However, the text itself is an excerpt from a judicial opinion regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby* (the Bill Cosby case), specifically discussing the legal standards for non-prosecution agreements and immunity. It analyzes whether a defendant (Cosby) reasonably relied on a District Attorney's (Castor) promise not to prosecute when providing deposition testimony. This precedent was likely cited in the Maxwell case to argue regarding the validity or applicability of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.

This document is the Table of Contents (page 'i') for a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The contents indicate a legal argument regarding the admissibility of evidence, specifically arguing that certain items are not relevant or should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Flatley. The testimony focuses on an email exchange from May 25, 2001, sent by 'Sally' to 'Ms. Maxwell' regarding a 'PB manual' (likely Palm Beach manual) and a conversation with 'John'.

This document is page 19 of a filed juror questionnaire (Document 638) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 9, 2022. Juror ID 50 responds to questions 39, 40, and 41, indicating that their knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and his association with Ms. Maxwell would not prevent them from being impartial ('No' to bias questions) and affirming they can follow court instructions regarding evidence ('Yes' to following instructions). The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009680.

A page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) arguing against the unsealing of grand jury materials. The defense argues that because the grand jury convened only five years prior and Ghislaine Maxwell is still actively litigating her case (including a pending Supreme Court petition), releasing the materials would cause irrevocable reputational harm and taint the legal process. The filing explicitly notes that while Epstein is dead, Maxwell is alive, distinguishing this case from others where secrecy is no longer needed due to the death of principal parties.

This document appears to be page 22 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated March 11, 2022. It details a transcript or account of an interview where 'Juror No. 50' is challenged regarding the accuracy of his jury questionnaire responses concerning sexual abuse victimization (specifically question 48). The text notes the juror's physical reaction (flushing red) and his verbal defense claiming honesty. It transitions to a section regarding the juror's social media activity involving Annie Farmer and journalist Ms. Osborne-Crawley.

This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 295) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents a legal argument by the prosecution distinguishing the current case from the precedent set in *Annabi*, *Abbamonte*, and *Alessi* regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause and plea agreements. The prosecution argues that Maxwell cannot claim Double Jeopardy protections because she was not previously prosecuted for the offenses listed in the S2 Indictment, and disputes her interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).

This is the cover page for 'Exhibit 1' associated with a legal filing on February 24, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It includes a Department of Justice production number at the bottom.

Page 45 of a legal filing (Document 613) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed in February 2022. The text presents a legal argument regarding 'Inferred Bias' and 'Actual Bias' in jurors, citing the precedent *Torres*. The defense argues that, similar to *Torres*, a juror in the current case (implied to be the Maxwell trial) was subject to conduct closely approximating that of the defendant, creating a risk of unconscious bias.

This document is page 143 of a legal filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues against granting the defendant an evidentiary hearing regarding a 'Franks' analysis and asserts that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to obtain discovery or dismiss perjury counts. The Government contends that a jury should decide whether the defendant committed perjury during two depositions in a prior civil matter.

This document is the signature page (page 2 of 2) of a legal filing from the law firm BSF (Boies Schiller Flexner), signed by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley. It was filed on June 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The main content of the page is redacted.

This document is the final signature page (Page 7 of 7) of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein. While signature blocks are prepared for Jeffrey Epstein, Gerald Lefcourt, R. Alexander Acosta, and A. Marie Villafaña, the only executed signature visible is that of Lilly Ann Sanchez, Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, dated September 24, 2007. The text certifies that Epstein has read, understood, and agreed to comply with the conditions of the agreement.

This document is page 9 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The text presents a legal argument citing precedents (Katz, Campagnuolo, Wicker) regarding discovery violations, willful misconduct, and the suppression of evidence as a sanction. The filing argues that the government failed to comply with a disclosure order issued months prior and criticizes the government's bad faith in seeking reconsideration rather than compliance.

This document is page 4 of a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 6, 2021. It details a judicial rejection of defense arguments that a witness named 'Jane' waived attorney-client privilege by cooperating with the government. The court rules that essential information regarding credibility does not automatically void privilege, citing Rule 403 and previous transcripts.

This document is page 115 of a legal filing (Document 204) from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines legal arguments regarding the 'good faith exception' to the exclusionary rule, citing precedents like United States v. Leon and United States v. Moore. The text argues that suppression of evidence is not warranted because the Government acted in good faith by obtaining a grand jury subpoena and applying to the court to modify a civil protective order.

This document is page 58 of 80 from a legal filing (likely a brief or opinion) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text analyzes legal precedents, specifically *Government of Virgin Islands v. Scotland*, to argue that prosecutors must be held to their promises and assurances to defendants, particularly when a defendant relies on those promises to their detriment. The page discusses the concepts of specific performance, due process, and plea agreements.

This page from a legal filing (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against admitting a statement made by attorney Glassman to the Government on August 17, 2021, regarding his client 'Jane'. The Government contends the statement has minimal impeachment value because Jane's civil cases were already dismissed and she had been paid by the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund prior to the statement. Additionally, the Government argues that admitting the statement risks violating attorney-client privilege regarding Glassman's advice to Jane.

This document is page 8 of a juror questionnaire filed on February 24, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It displays responses from Juror ID 50, who answers 'Yes' to three standard voir dire questions (12, 13, and 14) regarding the defendant's right not to testify, the obligation to decide based solely on evidence, and the separation of the verdict from punishment considerations. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.

This document is a page from a legal filing (originally 2012, refiled 2022) discussing attorney ethics regarding the reporting of perjury (fraud on the tribunal). It cites a precedent case involving 'Doe,' arguing that an attorney must have actual knowledge, not just strong suspicion, of perjury before a duty to disclose arises. The author of this text notes in a footnote that they served as the expert witness for 'Doe' in a Connecticut disciplinary hearing.