Southern District
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Eastern District
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Main Justice
|
Co negotiators |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | A criminal investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators by the Southern District. | Southern District | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations with Main Justice and Southern District | Unknown | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021970.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on December 16, 2019. In the transcript, the presiding judge grants a motion to exclude time until November 25th to allow the government to produce discovery, which the defense counsel agrees to. The judge also advises counsel to contact Judge Torres' deputy to resolve a separate scheduling issue.
DOJ-OGR-00021967.jpg
This is page 9 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on December 16, 2019. The Judge is addressing counsel regarding the release conditions for a defendant named Ms. Noel. The Judge clarifies that while the defense and government have reached an agreement, the Court has final authority, and discusses a specific pretrial service policy regarding firearms, noting that the case involves allegations about documents, not violence.
DOJ-OGR-00021966.jpg
A transcript page from a court hearing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) dated December 16, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Foy argues that his female client should be allowed to retain a personal-use firearm in her home as a condition of her release, citing her full cooperation with the government since August 14th regarding an investigation and international travel. The judge questions the necessity of the firearm.
DOJ-OGR-00021645.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and two counsels (Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim). The judge outlines post-trial housekeeping matters, including the defendant's right to appeal within 14 days, and states the Court's intention to set the conspiracy end date as July 2004 in the final judgment. Ms. Moe acknowledges this, noting she will review the records and submit a letter if there is a discrepancy with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00021642.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a sentencing hearing dated June 29, 2023. The judge orders the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to serve five years of supervised release and pay a $750,000 fine, rejecting her claim of inability to pay by citing a $10 million bequest she received from Epstein. The judge also imposes a mandatory special assessment and notes that the government is not seeking restitution or forfeiture.
DOJ-OGR-00021626.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) involving the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's requested sentence is excessive and notes that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 20 years. Sternheim compares Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that Epstein was 'far more culpable' yet would have faced the same sentencing guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00021606.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) featuring testimony from Ms. Farmer (likely Annie or Maria Farmer). She describes the psychological impact of the abuse, including the grooming process that led to self-doubt, survivor guilt, and the realization that her sister and many other women were also exploited by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The court briefly interrupts to ask her to slow down her speech.
DOJ-OGR-00021605.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 60) of a sentencing hearing, likely for Ghislaine Maxwell. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues for a harsh sentence to demonstrate that wealth does not place one above the law. Subsequently, a victim named Ms. Farmer begins her impact statement, describing the psychological trauma and loss of self-trust resulting from abuse committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021599.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the sentencing hearing) for Ms. Maxwell. The judge rejects the defense's claim that Maxwell is indigent, citing her previous report of $22 million in assets and a lack of documentation regarding her marriage or divorce settlement, and states an intention to impose a fine. The judge also notes that the government is not seeking restitution and prepares to discuss sentencing guidelines after a lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00021594.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing the sentencing calculations for a defendant involved in 'prohibited sexual conduct.' The judge calculates a guideline imprisonment range of 210 to 262 months and fines between $20,000 and $200,000 per count. Attorney Ms. Moe interrupts to correct a technical calculation regarding unit analysis under guideline 3D1.4.
DOJ-OGR-00021590.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, is a transcript of a judge's ruling in Case 22-1426. The judge overrules a defendant's objection to a sentencing enhancement, arguing that applying an enhancement for 'undue influence' over a minor in a commercial sex act does not constitute impermissible 'double counting' on top of the base offense. The judge cites legal precedent, including United States v. Watkins, to support the decision that the enhancement addresses a different facet of harm than the base offense level.
DOJ-OGR-00021586.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely United States v. Maxwell) regarding sentencing. The judge is ruling on the application of sentencing guidelines, specifically rejecting the defendant's argument against enhancement 4B1.5(b) regarding public danger. The text also introduces enhancement 3B1.1(a), discussing the defendant's 'leadership role' as an 'organizer or leader' in criminal activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021585.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript (SA-409) from Case 22-1426, filed on 06/29/2023. It records a judge's ruling during a sentencing hearing (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's, given the 'sex crime' and 'minor' context and file codes). The judge explicitly finds the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on at least two occasions and overrules a defense objection regarding sentencing enhancements, stating that the clear text of the Guidelines overrides background commentary or legislative history.
DOJ-OGR-00021580.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing an argument by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sentencing guidelines. Everdell argues that background commentary from the Sentencing Commission should be considered authoritative, specifically arguing that his client does not fit the definition of a 'dangerous sex offender' because they have not re-offended in over 18 years. Prosecutor Ms. Moe declines to respond verbally, resting on the government's written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00021562.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (specifically page 17 of the session, page 132 of the filing) involving a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Judge regarding sentencing procedures. The Judge confirms the rejection of a redaction request and states that testimony from an individual named 'Kate' is relevant to the sentencing. The parties agree to delay arguments regarding offense level calculations and financial penalties until a later point in the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00021559.jpg
This legal document is a transcript from a court proceeding where a judge is ruling on objections from the defense. The judge overrules objections to the inclusion of testimony from a victim named Carolyn regarding a sexual assault by Epstein, stating that her testimony is credible. The judge also overrules objections to considering information about the defendant's severed perjury charges for sentencing, concluding that the defendant's 2016 sworn testimony denying knowledge of Epstein's scheme is reliable information for the court to consider.
DOJ-OGR-00021550.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) concerning the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The proceedings cover the confirmation of victim notification postings on the U.S. Attorney's website. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, both confirm on the record that they have reviewed the presentence report and discussed it. Ms. Sternheim notes that co-counsel Mr. Everdell will handle objections.
DOJ-OGR-00019318.jpg
This legal document, dated May 18, 2020, is a filing arguing against defendant Maxwell's request to stay discovery in a civil case. The author contends that Maxwell has failed to justify the stay based on a parallel criminal investigation and that a potential claims resolution program involving co-defendant Epstein's Estate does not require litigation to be paused. The filing cites court transcripts and case law to support the position that discovery should proceed, as it may even be necessary to facilitate settlement.
DOJ-OGR-00019173.jpg
This document is an index from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the examination of a witness named Tracy Chapell, listing the page numbers for the direct examination by Mr. Rohrbach and the cross-examination by Mr. Everdell. The index also catalogs government and defendant exhibits (801, 801-R, 802, 802-R, 803, 803-R, and TC-1) that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019169.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Chapell by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding FedEx invoices. The defense introduces Exhibit TC-1 under temporary seal pending redactions, which is admitted without objection from prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and the witness is subsequently excused.
DOJ-OGR-00019143.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Rohrbach and Pagliuca discuss procedural matters with the Judge regarding the redaction and docketing of a letter and an 'Exhibit A'. The proceedings appear to be paused briefly while waiting for missing jurors to arrive.
DOJ-OGR-00019128.jpg
This document is page 4 of 49 from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys Everdell and Menninger discuss procedural logistics with the Court, including the distribution of exhibits to jurors and the upcoming testimony of witness Annie Farmer, who is noted as testifying openly rather than anonymously. Ms. Comey, representing the government, offers no objection to the handling of juror exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00019127.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. A defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, informs the court of his intent to introduce Federal Express invoices as evidence through the next witness, Tracy Chapell. He requests to submit the documents under a temporary seal to allow time for redactions, proposing to have a public version ready by the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00019122.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), and the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) regarding a briefing schedule that needs to be resolved before the government rests its case. The Judge denies a request for simultaneous briefing and sets a deadline of 7:00 PM for the government and 10:00 PM for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00019118.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a delay in starting the defense's case because the government shortened their case unexpectedly, causing witness scheduling issues. The Court agrees to delay the defense case start until the following Thursday and discusses scheduling a charging conference for Friday or the evening of the 16th.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity