SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014815.jpg
This document is page 68 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It contains the victim impact statement of an unnamed woman addressing Ghislaine Maxwell directly. The victim details the psychological trauma, nightmares, and trust issues resulting from the abuse and manipulation Maxwell facilitated and participated in. The victim asserts that Maxwell deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00014810.jpg
This page contains a transcript of a victim impact statement delivered during court proceedings (likely sentencing) for Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker, now a psychologist, describes the long-term professional and personal fear caused by Epstein and Maxwell's threats, and urges Judge Nathan to consider the systemic and ongoing suffering of the victims when determining Maxwell's sentence. The speaker criticizes Maxwell for failing to admit guilt or provide information after her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00014803.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing hearing transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, begins her argument for a significant prison sentence by recounting the abuse of victims Jane, Kate, Annie, Virginia, Carolyn, and Melissa starting in 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00014802.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge (The Court), Ms. Moe, and Ms. Sternheim regarding the order of statements for an upcoming session, specifically coordinating when victims and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, will speak. The court sets the order as government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, before taking a lunch recess until 1:00 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00014799.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a 'bequest' listed in the defendant's financial affidavit should not be considered an asset for the purpose of calculating fines because the source estate is in bankruptcy and paying out victims' claims, making the asset 'tenuous.' The Court questions the status of the bequest and asks Ms. Moe (likely the prosecution) for a response.
DOJ-OGR-00014792.jpg
Page 45 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The judge is issuing a ruling regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically overruling the defendant's objection to an 'undue influence' enhancement. The judge argues that applying the enhancement does not constitute 'double counting' because it addresses the specific harm of using influence to coerce a commercial sex act, distinct from the base offense of the victim being a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00014788.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The judge is ruling on sentencing guideline objections, specifically rejecting the defendant's argument against an enhancement for sexual abuse of minors and moving to discuss an enhancement for her 'leadership role' in the criminal activity. The text references Congressional intent regarding the sentencing of sex offenders and the requirements for proving a defendant was an organizer or leader.
DOJ-OGR-00014778.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell held a leadership role ('lady of the house') over Sarah Kellen, citing flight records to prove they were close associates of Jeffrey Epstein simultaneously. The defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) disputes the government's legal interpretation regarding the supervision of criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00008602.jpg
This document is page 64 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains 'Instruction No. 44: Credibility of Witnesses,' which guides the jury on how to evaluate witness testimony based on demeanor, consistency, honesty, and potential interest in the case's outcome. The text outlines the jurors' right to accept or reject testimony in whole or in part based on their assessment of truthfulness.
DOJ-OGR-00008591.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) detailing overt acts for Counts Three and Five of an indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell. It lists specific allegations of sexual abuse and recruitment involving minors named Jane and Carolyn between 1994 and 2004 in New York and Florida. The document is heavily edited with strike-throughs, notably removing allegations related to victims named Annie and Kate, and adjusting the age of victims from 17 to 18.
DOJ-OGR-00008537.jpg
This document is a draft verdict sheet from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated December 17, 2021, for the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The sheet outlines three counts for the jury to render a verdict on: Conspiracy to Entice an Individual, Enticement of an Individual (Jane), and Conspiracy to Transport a Minor, all related to traveling for illegal sexual activity. The case is presided over by the Honorable Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00008513.jpg
This document is Instruction No. 40 regarding 'Venue' from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It instructs the jury that the Government must prove, by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' that an act related to each charged crime occurred within the Southern District of New York, which includes several specified counties. The document clarifies that if the Government fails to meet this burden of proof for any specific charge, the jury must acquit the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, on that charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008507.jpg
This legal document, part of an indictment, details overt acts related to a criminal case against Epstein and Maxwell. It outlines specific instances between 1994 and 2004 where they allegedly conspired to recruit and sexually abuse several minors, identified as Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn, in various locations including New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London. The document describes methods of enticement, such as arranging travel and providing cash payments, and alleges that one victim, Carolyn, was also encouraged to recruit other girls.
DOJ-OGR-00008458.jpg
This document is the cover page for a 'Draft Jury Charge' filed on December 17, 2021, in the criminal case of the United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case S2 20 Cr. 330). It was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and bears a Department of Justice footer stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00008457.jpg
This document is a court order filed on December 17, 2021, by District Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order attaches a draft jury charge and verdict sheet and instructs counsel to be prepared to provide suggestions for changes at a charging conference scheduled for the following day, December 18, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00008456.jpg
This is the final page of a legal filing from the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York, dated December 19, 2021. The letter, submitted by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams and his assistants, informs the Court of the submission of exhibits GX 603-A and GX 604-A under a temporary seal. It also states that copies of other referenced exhibits will be provided the following morning.
DOJ-OGR-00008452.jpg
This document is the signature page of a legal filing from the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, filed on December 21, 2021. The document is submitted by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams and signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, along with three other Assistant U.S. Attorneys. A copy was also sent to the Defense Counsel via the court's electronic filing system.
DOJ-OGR-00008444.jpg
This is a legal filing from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 19, 2021. The letter concerns the ongoing trial of Ghislaine Maxwell and states that the prosecution ("The Government") and Maxwell's defense team have mutually agreed to allow a specific list of government exhibits, which were admitted during the trial, to be released to the public.
DOJ-OGR-00008443.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 5 of 5) of a legal filing, Document 558, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 19, 2021. The document was submitted by the office of DAMIAN WILLIAMS, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, with Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach also listed as Assistant U.S. Attorneys on the case.
DOJ-OGR-00008436.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 19, 2021, concerning the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government identifies a significant ambiguity in Jury Instruction No. 19, where the pronoun "she" could be interpreted as referring to either the defendant or the victim. To resolve this, the Government proposes that the court replace "she" with "the individual" to ensure clarity for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008431.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated December 15, 2021, from defense attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is a response to the government's motion to prevent a witness, Alexander Hamilton, from testifying about four specific topics related to an individual named 'Kate'. The defense argues that providing Hamilton's declaration to the government under Rule 26.2 does not obligate them to introduce all of its contents as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008430.jpg
This legal document is a filing from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, arguing against a defense position regarding witness availability. The prosecution cites the precedent of *United States v. Jones*, where a judge rejected a similar defense attempt to compel the government to immunize a witness. The filing concludes that since the defense had the opportunity to call numerous witnesses, including Virginia Roberts, there is no reason to deviate from the standard jury instruction on the equal availability of witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008425.jpg
This is a legal letter dated December 16, 2021, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter presents legal arguments concerning the impeachment of witnesses using inconsistent statements and '3500 material' (Jencks Act disclosures), citing specific case law to support the defense's procedural approach.
DOJ-OGR-00008424.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on December 16, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan, denies the Government's motion to preclude remaining witnesses from testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00008422.jpg
This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 16, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge orders the parties to submit letters by 10:15 p.m. that same day citing legal authority regarding the admission of prior inconsistent statements and the application of Rule 613(b). The parties are also ordered to docket these letters by the following morning.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity