THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014901.jpg
This document is page 25 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct examination of a witness identified as Rocchio by attorney Ms. Pomerantz. The witness describes their professional responsibilities as the president-elect of the Division of Trauma Psychology within the American Psychological Association.
DOJ-OGR-00014896.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on 01/15/25. It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the witness's academic credentials at Brown University and their expertise in traumatic stress and childhood trauma. During the testimony, Government Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence without objection from the defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca.
DOJ-OGR-00014894.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The witness testifies about their career experience in treating victims of childhood sexual abuse, stating they have worked with individuals aged 13 and up but currently focus on adults (18+) in both their clinical and forensic practices. The court interjects to clarify the distinction between these two areas of the witness's work.
DOJ-OGR-00014883.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on January 15, 2025. It captures the beginning of the direct examination of a government witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. The transcript includes the witness being sworn in and receiving procedural instructions from the judge regarding microphone usage before the questioning commences.
DOJ-OGR-00014881.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. The court discusses upcoming trial dates with counsel, proposing a final pretrial conference for November 23rd and discussing the start of voir dire on November 16th. Counsel Ms. Pomerantz (for the government) and Ms. Sternheim agree to the proposals, with Ms. Sternheim asking for a specific start time for the voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00014880.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge sets a firm hearing date for November 15th to discuss jury questionnaires and motions in limine, specifically mentioning defense motions regarding co-conspirator statements, 'alleged victim 3', and Exhibit 52. The court also plans to address government motions seeking to exclude testimony from experts Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz.
DOJ-OGR-00014879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. The Judge discusses the necessity of sealing portions of the proceedings related to Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (sexual behavior evidence) and outlines the schedule for addressing 'Daubert' issues first. The Judge also notes a high response rate for jury summons, with 565 prospective jurors having filled out questionnaires in two days.
DOJ-OGR-00014878.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a pretrial conference in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. Counsel for the government and for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, state their appearances for the record. The judge outlines the case schedule, noting that jury selection began on November 4th and the trial is set to commence on November 29th, and sets the agenda to address the defendant's motions to exclude evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00014847.jpg
This court transcript from August 22, 2022, details a discussion about finalizing a judgment in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court informs counsel of its decision to set the end date of the criminal conspiracy as July 2004, noting this differs from the government's previous position. The government's counsel, Ms. Moe, states she will review the exhibits and will only file a written objection if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00014835.jpg
This document is page 88 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The Judge ('The Court') is addressing the courtroom regarding sentencing guidelines, stating the applicable range is 188 to 235 months' imprisonment. The Judge outlines the legal requirements under *Booker* and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) for determining a sentence that is 'sufficient, but no greater than necessary.'
DOJ-OGR-00014834.jpg
This document is page 87 of the sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It captures the conclusion of Maxwell's statement to the court, followed by procedural discussions between the Judge, defense counsel Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding supervised release conditions and restitution. The court notes that while Count Six carries mandatory restitution, the government agrees none should be ordered as victims have already been compensated.
DOJ-OGR-00014829.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The defense attorney argues for a lighter sentence based on 3553(a) factors, citing Maxwell's traumatic childhood marked by her brother's coma and death, and her 'narcissistic, brutish' father. The defense also attempts to mitigate her culpability by characterizing Jeffrey Epstein as 'controlling, demanding, [and] manipulative,' claiming he cast a deceptive shadow over her adulthood.
DOJ-OGR-00014828.jpg
This document is page 81 of a court transcript from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's requested sentence is disproportionate and notes that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 20 years. Sternheim explicitly argues that Jeffrey Epstein was 'far more culpable' than Maxwell, yet would have faced the same sentencing guidelines.
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-00014800.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's decision to overrule an objection regarding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell's, financial assets. The judge asserts that an uncertain asset, along with a $10 million bequest from Epstein, must be considered when determining her ability to pay a fine, as she has failed to prove otherwise. The transcript highlights the court's view of Maxwell's finances as a 'moving target'.
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-00014798.jpg
This document is page 51 of a court transcript from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The text details a recruitment chain involving the defendant, Virginia [Giuffre], Carolyn, and Melissa, noting that Melissa's name appears in the defendant's 'little black book.' The court also discusses financial fines, specifically mentioning the defendant's objection to including a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein as part of her assets.
DOJ-OGR-00014797.jpg
This document is page 50 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically establishing an offense level of 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235 months. The defense preserves an objection regarding the inclusion of Virginia and Melissa as separate offense groups.
DOJ-OGR-00014783.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's ruling on sentencing guidelines. The judge addresses objections from the defense regarding the application of the 2003 versus 2004 guidelines and an objection from the government that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered victims. The judge explains the legal reasoning, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause and the precedent set in Peugh v. United States, to determine which guidelines are applicable.
DOJ-OGR-00014781.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the supervisory authority of Kellen, an employee, in relation to Maxwell, Epstein, and an unnamed defendant. It details arguments about whether Kellen's actions, such as making calls and scheduling massage appointments, constituted supervisory authority, and mentions testimony from pilots regarding Kellen's reporting structure. The discussion also touches upon a five-point enhancement for sex offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00014780.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, in the case of USA v. Maxwell. The defense argues against a 'leadership enhancement' for sentencing, claiming trial testimony proves Sarah Kellen was Jeffrey Epstein's assistant, not Ghislaine Maxwell's, citing witnesses Larry Visoski and Cimberly Espinosa. Prosecutor Ms. Moe rebuts by citing victim Carolyn's testimony that Maxwell was present at the Palm Beach residence even when Kellen took over scheduling massages.
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-00014777.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that Sarah Kellen was a 'criminal participant' subordinate to Maxwell in the conspiracy hierarchy, taking over tasks like scheduling victims so that Maxwell could move higher up in the leadership structure. The Judge questions the specific evidence proving Maxwell's supervision over Kellen.
DOJ-OGR-00014776.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court transcript from the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The discussion focuses on sentencing guidelines, specifically whether Maxwell acted as an 'organizer or leader' of criminal activity. The government attorney (Ms. Moe) argues that Maxwell held a supervisory role over Sarah Kellen, identifying Kellen as a 'criminally responsible participant' to justify the sentencing enhancement.
DOJ-OGR-00014775.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, capturing a legal argument about evidence. A defense attorney argues that a helicopter purchase and testimony from Larry Visoski about holding assets for Mr. Epstein are not proof of their client's continued involvement in a conspiracy. In response, prosecutor Ms. Moe contends that this financial evidence was specifically offered to prove the defendant remained a 'close associate' of Epstein for many years, contradicting the defense's claim that she had 'moved on'.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $9,500,000.00 | Value of real property offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | security company | THE COURT | $1,000,000.00 | Bond co-signed by a security company. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $550,000.00 | Cash offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | THE COURT | $28,500,000.00 | Proposed total bond amount. | View |
| 2020-12-14 | Received | Sureties (Family/... | THE COURT | $0.00 | Meaningful pledges of cash or property in amoun... | View |
| 2020-07-13 | Received | Unidentified co-s... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount by the defense, which the ... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure Maxwell's appear... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Defense/Co-signers | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom of... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure appearance. | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Ms. Maxwell / Ass... | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom us... | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $22,500,000.00 | Proposed bond amount representing all of the co... | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | MR. EPSTEIN | THE COURT | $0.00 | Defense offer to put up 'any amount' of collate... | View |
| 2019-07-11 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | THE COURT | $77,000,000.00 | Valuation of Manhattan residence to be mortgage... | View |
| 2010-07-01 | Received | Epstein's counsel | THE COURT | $5,000.00 | Proposed sanction fine for discovery violations. | View |
Response to victims' letter
The Defendant submitted a letter in response to the letter from the attorney for two individuals.
Testimony regarding her circumstances and relationship wi...
Dr. Eva Dubin testified on the stand that she had just had a baby and that she knew Sophie, who was a professional masseuse.
Ghislaine Maxwell Appeal
A legal brief was filed by the Assistant United States Attorneys on behalf of the Appellee.
Ghislaine Maxwell Appeal
A legal brief was filed by attorneys from Aidala Bertuna & Kamins PC on behalf of the Defendant-Appellant.
Notification of crime victims
The Court mentions a letter in which the government indicated its actions regarding notifying crime victims.
Adjournment of court
The judge (THE COURT) confirms with counsel (MS. MOE and MS. STERNHEIM) that there are no further matters to discuss before adjourning the court until the following day.
Courtroom procedure for objections
The judge instructs attorneys to cite a rule of evidence for objections instead of using one-word grounds, to avoid improperly communicating with the jury or witnesses. The attorneys acknowledge the instruction, confirm no further business is expected, and the court adjourns.
Defendant's bail
A recent submission to the court mentioned that victims or their counsel had been contacted and were of the view that there should be no bail for the defendant.
Letters of support for the Defendant
A series of letters (Exs. A-N, W-X) submitted to the court to support the Defendant's claim of having significant ties to the United States and to attest to her character.
Letter of support for the Defendant
A letter from the Defendant's spouse describing the 'quiet family life' they led before her arrest, intended to counter the Government's characterization of her 'transient' lifestyle.
Pretrial Services Report
A report which states that at the time of her arrest, the Defendant was not living with her spouse and claimed they were getting divorced.
Briefing schedule and adjournment
The judge discusses the briefing schedule with Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, then adjourns the court until the following morning.
Defense subpoena
The Court mentions receiving a letter from lawyers stating they have a defense subpoena and their witness would invoke.
Pretrial conference in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
The court outlines the schedule for the case, including past and future dates for jury selection and trial commencement, and states the agenda for the current conference, which is to address the defendant's motions.
Procedural matters and scheduling
The judge discusses scheduling for the next day, expresses disappointment over multiple sidebars during openings, and schedules a pre-session meeting to address issues in advance. The court is then adjourned.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States of America v. Ghisl...
The Court received a significant number of submissions from non-parties that it deemed procedurally improper or irrelevant and stated they would not be considered or docketed.
Declining invitation to deliberate
The jury sent a note to the court declining the invitation to deliberate on the following day ('tomorrow').
A set of facts related to the case
A brief submitted by Ms. Brune's side, which is being questioned for containing material omissions. Ms. Brune denies any intent to make material omissions.
Updating Contact Information and Captioning Rules
Instructions on how to update addresses in CM/ECF/PACER and how court captions are handled pursuant to FRAP rules.
Response to Court Order (Dkt. No. 270)
States MDC staff conduct flashlight checks as a matter of course and explains procedures.
Request for redactions
Arguments for redactions based on undisclosed issues, credibility, and due process.
Sentencing Statements
Statements regarding the defendant/impact, permitted to be part of the record.
Reply brief
Arguments for suppression under Martindell and due process.
Logistical arrangements
Government must inform the Court regarding victim notification efforts.
Reply to Government's Opposition
A reply brief cited as "Maxwell Reply at 18" where the Defendant asserts the government failed to prove its case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity