THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00020907.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (dated Feb 28, 2023, Case 22-1426) involving a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe before the Judge. The discussion centers on the credibility of a male witness/victim who gave an interview to a journalist named Lucia from 'The Independent' about sexual abuse. Everdell argues the witness is inconsistent regarding whether he understood that speaking to the press would make his identity and abuse public.
DOJ-OGR-00020906.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Moe) about a potential juror. The conversation focuses on the juror's questionnaire answers, his past as a victim of sexual abuse, and his interactions with a journalist named Lucia, questioning his understanding of the public consequences and his ability to be an impartial juror.
DOJ-OGR-00020905.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell are arguing before the Judge that a specific juror (referred to as 'he') demonstrated bias and dishonesty by publicly discussing his own history of sexual abuse and his role in the trial on Facebook and to victim Annie Farmer, despite claiming during selection he didn't want to share that history. The Court agrees to ask the juror to reconcile his claim of privacy with his public media engagement.
DOJ-OGR-00020904.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a legal argument about jury selection. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, requests to ask a juror more detailed follow-up questions about their history of sexual abuse to assess potential bias, but the Court denies the request. Another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then questions the judge about the information provided to the juror regarding the nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00020903.jpg
This document contains pages 27 and 28 of a court transcript designated 'M38TMAX1'. It details a sidebar conference following the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding his history of sexual abuse and ability to be impartial. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues for further questioning regarding the juror's 'healing process' and self-identification as a victim to ensure he can be impartial in a sexual abuse case, while Ms. Moe proposes questions about the juror's adherence to the questionnaire process.
DOJ-OGR-00020892.jpg
This document is a transcript page (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial proceedings, indicated by 'M38TMAX1') regarding 'Juror 50'. The Court grants Juror 50 'use immunity' following an assertion of Fifth Amendment privileges, protecting them from prosecution based on their testimony provided they do not commit perjury. The Court also explicitly instructs the juror not to reveal information regarding jury deliberations or thought processes during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding 'Juror 50' from the 'United States v. Maxwell' case. The judge confirms with both the juror and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about his jury service. The judge also rules that the juror may continue to be referred to as 'Juror 50' to protect his anonymity, consistent with his actions in post-verdict press interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00020862.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 3153) involving a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion centers on a jury note and whether a supplemental instruction is needed to clarify that conduct occurring solely in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a violation of New York law (specifically regarding Count Four). The Judge rejects the defense's proposed instruction as incorrect, noting that the defense did not previously seek to exclude testimony or request a limiting instruction regarding the New Mexico evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00020861.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing a conversation between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the judge. Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury, arguing that it shows they are confused about the instructions for Count Four. Specifically, the jury is questioning whether they can convict the defendant, M. Maxwell, based solely on events that occurred in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00020858.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial appeal, given the case number and content) detailing a dispute over jury instructions. The Court rejects a proposed defense instruction regarding 'Count Two' and discusses the legal relevance of sexual activity involving 'Jane' in New Mexico versus New York. The Judge addresses attorney Mr. Everdell directly regarding these legal arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00020857.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE) while the jury is not present. The discussion centers on a letter submitted by the defense overnight, which the judge just received. Ms. Moe argues that the letter merely repeats a legal argument about jury instructions that the defense made the previous day and which the Court had already considered and rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed as part of an appeal in 2023) documenting a dispute between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding jury instructions. The issue concerns a jury question about 'Count Four' and potential confusion between New York and New Mexico laws. The Judge shuts down the debate and decides to refer the jury back to the original charge.
DOJ-OGR-00020846.jpg
This court transcript from February 28, 2023, captures a legal debate about how to properly instruct a jury. The jury is confused about 'Count Four', which involves a violation of New York law, but they are asking about flights to New Mexico. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim present their arguments to the judge on whether simply referring the jury back to the original instructions is sufficient to clear up the apparent jurisdictional confusion.
DOJ-OGR-00020845.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell) regarding how to answer an ambiguous jury question related to 'Count Four' and 'Element 2'. The defense argues that without evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight, the jury cannot convict.
DOJ-OGR-00020843.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (part of an appeal filing dated Feb 28, 2023) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Ms. Menninger. They are analyzing a jury question regarding whether the defendant can be held responsible for specific flights (to New Mexico vs. New York) and discussing the legal necessity of proving transportation to a specific location versus the general intent to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text highlights the defense's argument that the indictment does not specify New Mexico exclusively.
DOJ-OGR-00020842.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) filed on 02/28/2023. It features a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger before a Judge regarding jury instructions and the legal definition of 'transportation' for illegal sexual activity. The discussion specifically focuses on a flight to New Mexico involving a victim referred to as 'Jane' and whether the intent of that specific travel leg was for sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00020838.jpg
This court transcript page, dated February 28, 2023, documents a discussion between a judge and attorneys about how to properly respond to a jury's question. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, present conflicting views on which specific jury instructions are relevant to the jury's query concerning 'Count Four'. The judge expresses difficulty in understanding the jury's exact question and considers following the government's suggestion.
DOJ-OGR-00020835.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) dated February 28, 2023. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury with the Judge, arguing that the jurors are distinguishing between a flight *to* New Mexico and a flight *from* New Mexico regarding 'illicit sexual activity.' Everdell states there is no record of a flight from New Mexico and argues about the necessary 'significant or motivating purpose' of the travel required for a guilty verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00020834.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel. The court reads a note from the jury requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m. and then facilitates a discussion among the lawyers, including defense counsel Ms. Sternheim and another counsel, Ms. Moe, who proposes referring the jury to a specific instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00020777.jpg
This document is page 18 of a court order (filed April 16, 2021) denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss her indictment. The Court rejects arguments regarding missing witnesses, specifically noting that potential testimony from the Palm Beach investigation or Epstein himself would likely not have been credible or exculpatory. The Court also rules that pretrial publicity and delays in prosecution have not caused substantial prejudice to Maxwell's right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019061.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a brief procedural exchange between the judge (THE COURT) and Ms. Comey about bringing the jury and a witness, identified as Rodgers, into the courtroom. After Ms. Comey agrees to the procedure, the judge gives the order to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00019060.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a moment during a trial where the judge calls for a mid-afternoon break. The cross-examination of witness Rodgers by defense attorney Everdell is paused, and the jury and witness are dismissed. The attorneys for the government (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) confirm they have no immediate matters to discuss, with Mr. Everdell noting he is less than halfway through his questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00019044.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on communications in the 2000s, specifically confirming that the witness used cell phones to communicate about flights with a Mr. Visoski and that they had Sarah Kellen's number programmed in their phone. The court briefly interrupts to admonish the speakers for talking over one another.
DOJ-OGR-00019042.jpg
A transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number). The defense attorney attempts to refresh Rodgers' recollection using a document regarding Sarah Kellen taking over as Jeffrey Epstein's primary assistant in late 2001. There is some confusion regarding which specific page and paragraph the witness should be reading.
DOJ-OGR-00019034.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The witness confirms they were never given any rules about mingling with passengers or interacting with other pilots and staff associated with Mr. Epstein. The transcript also briefly discusses the logistics of using the restroom on a Gulfstream aircraft during flights to Europe.
| 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 |
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Sufficiency of the evidence
An oral application made by the Defendant regarding the sufficiency of evidence, which the Court notes lacked substantive argument.
Juror qualification and background
Juror 50 made false statements and failed to give truthful answers on the juror questionnaire.
Question about responsibility for aiding in transportatio...
A note from the jury is being discussed. Its meaning is unclear due to the placement of a comma, which significantly alters the question being asked about responsibility for a flight to New Mexico.
Review of Macalvins financial report
A report from a former IRS agent confirming the accuracy and completeness of the financial picture presented by Macalvins Limited.
Case Deliberations
A note written by juror Catherine Conrad, the contents of which are being argued over to determine if they show prejudice. The speaker argues that Rule 606(b) precludes drawing inferences from this note.
Support for Ms. Maxwell's bail application
A letter describing Ms. Maxwell's family ties to the U.S., their committed relationship, and explaining why she dropped out of public view and why he did not co-sign at the initial hearing.
Character reference for Ms. Maxwell
Letters attesting to Ms. Maxwell's strong character, confidence she will not flee, and the financial distress sureties would suffer if she violated bail conditions.
Accounting of Ms. Maxwell's financial condition from 2015...
A report detailing Ms. Maxwell's assets, assets held in trust, and her spouse's assets, totaling approximately $22.5 million.
Rebuttal of government's claim
A statement rebutting the claim that Ms. Maxwell attempted to hide from law enforcement at the time of her arrest.
Waiver of extradition rights
Irrevocable written waivers of Ms. Maxwell's right to extradition, presented to address the Court's concerns.
Defendant's bail proposal and financial resources
The defendant submitted a memorandum that the government claims pointedly declines to provide information about her financial resources.
Jury selection questionnaire
A 22-page, 50-question document provided to approximately seven hundred potential jurors to assess their ability to be fair and impartial. Jurors signed it under penalty of perjury.
Arguments regarding bail application
Multiple written submissions (Ex. I, J, K) were considered by Judge Nathan before denying Maxwell's request.
Trial Scheduling
A discussion between the judge and attorneys to finalize the schedule for the defense case, charging conference, and closing arguments, taking into account the upcoming Christmas holiday.
Maxwell's bail hearing
Before Maxwell's bail hearing, the parties filed extensive written submissions.
Allegations against Maxwell
An anonymous victim submitted a written statement describing Maxwell's abuse.
Witness's positive COVID test
A letter was apparently sent to the Court, mentioned by the judge, which stated that Ms. Sternheim's side had the witness's positive COVID test result.
Allegations against Mr. Epstein
The Court references a letter from Mr. Rossmiller that described allegations of obstruction, harassment, and witness tampering by Mr. Epstein.
Question 48
Juror 50 provided an answer to Question 48 on the juror questionnaire that is allegedly inconsistent with his public statements.
Logistics of voir dire (jury selection)
The judge outlines the procedure for jury selection, including providing juror lists 24 hours in advance, marking the list as Court Exhibit 1, and the daily schedule. The judge confirms with counsel that they have no questions about the process.
Justification for sealing juror questionnaire
A letter mentioned in the document where the defense speculates that media coverage may prejudice the jury selection process.
Justification for sealing juror questionnaire
A letter mentioned in the document where the defense speculates that media coverage may prejudice the jury selection process.
Character reference for David
A letter cited in the main document, describing David's coaching philosophy and actions.
Character reference for David
A letter cited in the main document, stating that David understands how sports teach life lessons.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity