This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about a witness who has contracted COVID. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that the witness be allowed to testify remotely via WebEx, while the opposing government counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, insists on the need for cross-examination and demands proof of the positive COVID test. The Court intervenes to clarify whether this proof has already been provided in a letter.
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, related to the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The dialogue is between the Court and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning Ms. Maxwell's residency in London. Everdell argues that title records showing Maxwell owned a property at 69 Stanhope Mews prior to purchasing a residence on Kinnerton Street would prove she was not living at the new location earlier than claimed, while the Court questions why a proffered attorney witness is not present to testify to these facts.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit property records showing the O'Neill family, not his client Ms. Maxwell, owned a property until 1997. This is intended to counter government testimony that Ms. Maxwell lived there starting in 1992, but the judge emphasizes that the key legal question is residence, not ownership.
This document is an entry from 'David Patrick Columbia's New York Social Diary' dated April 20, 2004. The author recounts a dinner at the New York restaurant Swifty's, noting the presence of Lee Radziwill, as well as Jim Kaufman dining with Laura Codman. The entry focuses on Laura Codman's lineage, as she is a descendant of the influential 20th-century interior designer Ogden Codman, and muses on his legacy and collaboration with Edith Wharton.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa testifies about their knowledge of Ghislaine's residences, confirming she had a townhouse on 65th Street in New York and another residence at 44 Kinnerton Street in London. The witness also states that, to their knowledge, Ghislaine never lived with Jeffrey Epstein.
This document is a page from a court transcript featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The questioning focuses on the travel habits of Mr. Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically regarding guests on private planes and the use of commercial flights.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests that a male witness, who is quarantined with COVID-19, be allowed to testify via WebEx rather than traveling. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach insists that the witness must be subject to cross-examination (rejecting a stipulation) and demands proof of a positive COVID test.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for the admission of property records showing a specific property was owned by the 'O'Neills' until 1997, not Maxwell, to impeach testimony from a witness named Kate. The Judge counters that ownership does not equate to residence, noting testimony that Maxwell lived there starting in 1992 regardless of ownership status.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, discussing the admissibility of evidence related to a property transfer. One party presents land registry records and an attorney's files to show ownership passing from 'the O'Neills' to 'Ms. Maxwell' in the 1990s. An opposing attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues this evidence is overly confusing, involves complex British real estate law, and is irrelevant to when the defendant actually occupied the property, and would therefore prejudice the jury.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell discusses the plan to call a notary, Keith Rooney, to testify about authenticated land registry documents and records from a Mr. Grumbridge in London. The purpose of this evidence is to prove that Ghislaine Maxwell did not reside at a specific property prior to 1996.
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. The judge provides guidance on witness testimony, confirms the preclusion of testimony from Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards, and addresses a government objection to admitting a 1996 sale agreement for a London property as evidence. The discussion involves several attorneys, including Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell.
This document is a page from a government sentencing memorandum filed on June 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues for a significant financial penalty, highlighting that the defendant's wealth—derived largely from $23 million transferred by Jeffrey Epstein and the sale of a Manhattan townhouse—facilitated the abuse of victims and was concealed from Pretrial Services. The text asserts that her dishonesty regarding her assets is an aggravating factor warranting an above-Guidelines fine.
This document is the final page of a letter from Harriett Jagger to a court, filed as part of a legal case on June 15, 2022. Jagger pleads for mercy and a 'survivable' sentence for an individual named Ghislaine. The letter serves as a character reference intended to influence the court's sentencing decision.
This document is a character reference letter from Harriett Jagger, filed as part of a legal case. Jagger describes her 45-year friendship with a person named Ghislaine, portraying her as a warm, loyal, and devoted individual who craved a family life. Jagger contrasts her personal knowledge of Ghislaine with the negative portrayal she reads in the media, asserting that it is not a true representation of her friend.
This document is a letter of support dated April 24, 2022, from Catherine Vaughan-Edwards to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. Vaughan-Edwards describes her long-standing relationship with Maxwell, which began when Maxwell employed her in 1988 and evolved into a close, personal friendship. The letter aims to provide a positive character reference for Maxwell by highlighting their enduring bond, including Maxwell's role as godmother to one of Vaughan-Edwards' sons, to be considered by the court during sentencing.
This is a letter of support from Ian Maxwell to Judge Alison J. Nathan, written on April 29, 2022, regarding his sister, Ghislaine, who has been found guilty of unspecified charges. Maxwell attests to his sister's good character over their 60+ year relationship, highlighting her generosity through donations, paying for family members' education, and providing financial and housing support to friends and family, including himself. He also notes her personal achievements and courage during her incarceration, appealing to the judge to consider these positive aspects of her character.
This legal document details how the Defendant and Epstein used financial gifts and payments as a method of grooming victims like Jane and Annie, paying for things like lessons, school, and promising trips. The document also discusses the geographic scope of the criminal conspiracy, noting that while specific counts focused on New York and Florida, witnesses testified to sexual conduct occurring in New Mexico and London as well. The text highlights the testimony of victims, including Carolyn and Virginia Roberts, who were paid for sexualized massages.
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Document 647) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that 'Count Five' (related to Florida/Carolyn) is multiplicitous because it is a subset of the broader 'Count Three,' citing the lack of independent conspiracy. It references testimony from victims Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer regarding sexual abuse at Epstein's properties in New Mexico, London, the US Virgin Islands, and Palm Beach.
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) dated April 6, 2012, which lists the publications of Stephen Gillers. The list includes books and articles he authored, co-edited, or contributed to between 1973 and 2011. The publications cover various legal topics, including the FBI, government secrecy, legal ethics, and law practice, and involve collaborations with several other editors and publishers.
This document is a news article detailing the perspective of a juror, 'Scotty,' from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Scotty explains that the defense team's aggressive tactics, particularly attorney Laura Menninger's questioning of a victim, backfired and helped convince the jury of the defense's lack of respect for the victims. The article also contains a sidebar about a separate, 'brutal' court hearing for Prince Andrew in New York concerning a lawsuit filed by his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.
This legal document, page 206 of a court filing from April 16, 2021, is part of the government's argument against a defendant's motion. It contends that the indictment is sufficiently detailed, outlining the defendant's role in grooming three minor girls for sexual activity with Epstein in Florida, New Mexico, New York, and London between 1994 and 1997. The document also references the defendant's alleged perjury during a 2016 civil deposition and cites case law to support the legal sufficiency of the indictment.
This document is page 190 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The Government argues against striking allegations related to 'Minor Victim-3,' asserting that her testimony regarding grooming and sex acts in London is probative of the defendant's intent and the conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein, even if potential statute of limitations issues exist for specific charges. The document emphasizes that the evidence establishes the relationship between the defendant and Epstein.
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 16, 2021, argues that the indictment against the defendant is valid. The prosecution asserts that the defendant's alleged actions of recruiting and grooming 'Minor Victim-3' for 'Epstein' constitute sufficient evidence of participation in a conspiracy, even if the substantive crime of transporting a minor was not completed. A footnote addresses a defense objection to the term 'abuse,' noting that while Minor Victim-3 may have been over the age of consent in the United Kingdom for some acts, she will testify to the traumatic nature of the experience.
This document consists of four phone message slips, three dated in July 2004 and one undated, all for a recipient identified as "JE" or "Mr. Epstein". The messages are from four different individuals: Glen Dubin, ROGER, TATUM, and PETER from LONDON. The content of the messages involves coordinating a call upon arrival in NY, a notification about a document sent to be read, a request for permission to take a taxi, and returning a phone call. Three of the messages were taken by a person who signed as "Ru".
This legal document discusses the defendant's financial status and its implications for her bail conditions. It highlights that the defendant possesses significantly more assets ($22 million, including a $2 million London townhouse and over $4 million in unrestrained funds) than initially reported, making her a substantial flight risk. The document also raises concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed bail bond, noting that some co-signers are UK residents who haven't offered cash or property, and the defendant's $7 million attorney retainer is presumed unspent.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity