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-00011617.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on July 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized' and she has received no money from it. The Court acknowledges she hasn't received the bequest but determines that other 'additional assets' make her able to pay the fine, and subsequently imposes the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00011608.jpg
This document is page 89 of a sentencing transcript filed on July 22, 2022, involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The presiding judge explains that Maxwell is being sentenced specifically for her own role in enticing, transporting, and trafficking underage girls (some as young as 14) for sexual abuse by and with Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing that she is not being punished merely as a proxy for Epstein but for her own direct participation in the abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00011598.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. A victim, Ms. Stein, delivers a powerful impact statement describing how Maxwell's actions affected her for 25 years and calls for Maxwell to be imprisoned. Following the statement, another individual, Ms. Sternheim, addresses the court to speak to the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00011583.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a portion of a court proceeding where a witness, identified only as 'Kate' due to an anonymity order, begins to deliver her victim impact statement. Before she speaks, Ms. Moe confirms the protective order with the court, which is affirmed, and Kate then starts her emotional testimony about fearing for her child's safety and fighting for justice against a 'common enemy'.
DOJ-OGR-00011568.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a judge determines a defendant's sentence based on the 2003 Guidelines. The judge calculates a total offense level of 37, leading to a guideline imprisonment range of 210-262 months and a fine range of $20,000 to $200,000 per count. An attorney, Ms. Moe, then interjects to correct the judge's calculation, stating that 5 units should add 4 levels, not 5.
DOJ-OGR-00011556.jpg
This legal document is a transcript from a court proceeding concerning the sentencing of a defendant named Guerrero for a sex-trafficking conspiracy. The judge is determining whether the 2003 or the harsher 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, which hinges on whether the crime continued after November 1, 2004. This determination relies heavily on the testimony of a victim named Carolyn, whom the judge and jury found to be a credible witness.
DOJ-OGR-00011554.jpg
A page from a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that sentencing guidelines regarding 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' should not apply to his client, noting she has not been accused of a crime in over 18 years. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, declines to respond verbally, resting on previous written briefings.
DOJ-OGR-00011548.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on July 22, 2022, detailing a legal argument between a government representative, Ms. Moe, and the Court. The discussion focuses on establishing the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, as an 'organizer or leader' for sentencing purposes by proving she exercised a supervisory role over at least one other criminally responsible participant. The government specifically identifies Sarah Kellen as the individual supervised by Ms. Maxwell, based on evidence from the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011545.jpg
This is page 26 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the conspiracy charge cannot extend to 2005 because the individual named Carolyn was no longer a minor at that time (her birthday being in early January). Everdell also challenges the reliability and admissibility of an undated 'message pad' used as evidence, arguing it cannot be properly authenticated or dated.
DOJ-OGR-00011541.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge (THE COURT) and a government attorney (MS. MOE). The discussion centers on the legal end date of a conspiracy, with the government arguing it extended through 2004 and into 2005. The judge expresses concern that the evidence cited by the government is 'post conspiracy' because it falls after the date in the indictment and, crucially, after a person named Carolyn turned 18, an event upon which the conspiracy's continuation was legally dependent.
DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, where an attorney argues a legal point to a judge. The attorney contends that determining the end date of an offense, which is critical for an Ex Post Facto Clause violation claim, is a factual question for the jury, not a Sixth Amendment issue for the judge as per the Apprendi line of cases. The attorney cites the 'Tykarsky' opinion as support and notes that the government has not responded to this specific argument.
DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court transcript from a sentencing hearing filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the 2003 sentencing guidelines should apply rather than the 2004 guidelines to avoid violating the Ex Post Facto Clause, noting that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 240 months despite a calculated range of 292-365 months.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019846.jpg
This document appears to be an article or report excerpt (marked with a House Oversight Bates stamp) comparing the prosecutorial styles of Robert Morgenthau and Preet Bharara. It details Bharara's firing by President Trump in March 2017, his record of prosecuting NY politicians like Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, and critiques his focus on hedge fund insider trading over systemic Wall Street bank abuses. The text highlights the tension between political corruption investigations and executive power.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_027571.jpg
This document is a forensic extraction of a digital conversation from February 2, 2019, between Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias 'jeeitunes') and a redacted individual. The conversation discusses a 'heads up' given by 'Whittaker' regarding 'troubles,' likely referring to legal issues, and specifically asks about the involvement of the 'southern district' (SDNY). The chat also touches on constitutional arguments regarding indictments and concludes with a query about flight plans for that evening.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity