THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
EFTA00027239.pdf
This document is an internal email chain from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) dated August 6-7, 2019, discussing Jeffrey Epstein's historical state plea transcript. An Assistant U.S. Attorney highlights specific quotes from the plea hearing where the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida was detailed, explicitly noting that federal prosecutors agreed not to prosecute Epstein federally in SDFL if he completed probation. The email also notes that SDFL representatives were present in court during the plea.
DOJ-OGR-00030313.tif
This document is a page from a court transcript dated May 22, 2009, from case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM. It details a discussion between the Court, the Defendant, and Ms. Belohlavek concerning the conditions of the Defendant's sentence, specifically regarding contact with victims and the completion of a sex offender program, particularly for victims under 18.
DOJ-OGR-00018381.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. During a direct examination, a witness named Kate testifies that Maxwell told her Jeffrey Epstein "needed massages all the time" and that it was "very difficult to keep up." Immediately following this conversation, Kate states that Maxwell led her upstairs to a room containing a massage table.
DOJ-OGR-00018372.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically the direct examination of a witness named Kate. The testimony establishes that Kate met Maxwell in Paris when Kate was approximately 17 years old, exchanged phone numbers, and was subsequently invited by Maxwell to her house for tea a few weeks later. The prosecutor, Ms. Pomerantz, also introduces a photograph (GX109) taken in the witness's backyard.
DOJ-OGR-00018368.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named 'Kate,' regarding the admission of her driver's license (Government Exhibit 18) under seal to protect her anonymity. Kate testifies that she finished 'some high school' and currently works with women suffering from trauma and substance use disorder.
DOJ-OGR-00018367.jpg
Transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Witness 'Kate' is under direct examination by Ms. Pomerantz. Kate identifies Government Exhibit 16 as her birth certificate. The prosecution then moves to discuss Government Exhibit 18, prompting the Judge to instruct the jury to close their binders temporarily until the evidence is admitted.
DOJ-OGR-00018366.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the beginning of the direct examination of a witness using the pseudonym 'Kate' to protect her privacy. The prosecutor, Ms. Pomerantz, requests the jury look at Government Exhibit 16, which is noted as being under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00018364.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The court admits a series of redacted government exhibits into evidence and the government calls its next witness, 'Kate', who will testify under a pseudonym. The judge provides a limiting instruction to the jury regarding Kate's upcoming testimony about her interactions with the defendant and a 'Mr. Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00018361.jpg
This document is a single page (page 24 of 261) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, relating to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange where the Court takes a pause, confirms that attorney Mr. Rohrbach is ready, and then orders the jury to be brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00018360.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a legal argument regarding the redaction of documents to protect the identity of a person referred to as 'Jane' from being cross-referenced with public records on PACER. The Judge instructs the attorneys (Ms. Moe and Mr. Rohrbach) to find a middle ground that protects witness privacy while acknowledging facts already in the public trial transcript before the jury enters.
DOJ-OGR-00018359.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the Judge, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Moe regarding the sealing and redaction of exhibits marked J8 and J9. Ms. Menninger argues for specific redactions to protect plaintiffs' identities while keeping the bulk of the document public, citing 'Lugash' precedent. The Court orders the exhibits temporarily sealed while the parties confer on the specific redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00018357.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion in open court regarding the sealing and redaction of defense exhibits, specifically J15 and a proposed J15R. The core issue is the protection of identifying information related to 'Jane,' who was the subject of a recent cross-examination. Various parties, including Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Menninger, debate the necessity and process of sealing these exhibits to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.
DOJ-OGR-00018356.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding the scope of cross-examination. The government objects to identifying a specific lawyer representing a witness to avoid implying a 'broader conspiracy,' and the Judge rules on what questions are permissible before deciding not to seal the discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00018355.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and the judge. Attorney Ms. Sternheim argues for the relevance of questioning a witness about their attorney, who is present in the courtroom. Sternheim contends that the attorney's role in the 'Epstein Fund' and the fact that he wrote a book about the witness's story are pertinent facts for the jury to consider during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018354.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar conference where prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach objects to the defense's intention to ask the upcoming witness, 'Kate,' to identify her personal counsel in the courtroom. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that if a witness brings counsel for support, it is relevant and 'fair game' for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018353.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell about a stipulation regarding the testimony of a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson. The parties agreed to read the stipulation to the jury to avoid the inconvenience of the witness having to travel back from Florida to provide additional testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018352.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Comey) and the judge. The discussion centers on procedural matters, specifically clarifying which numbered massage room photos are to be admitted as evidence with redactions. Mr. Everdell also informs the court that the defense and the government have reached an agreement on a testimonial stipulation for a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson.
DOJ-OGR-00018351.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and attorneys Rohrbach, Comey, and Everdell. The main topic is the procedure for admitting redacted photos into evidence, with the court ruling that the jury will see unredacted versions while the public sees the redacted copies. Attorney Everdell requests and is granted time to review the redactions before they are formally moved into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018350.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Court. The conversation centers on the government's plan to question a witness about photos of celebrities and nude women in Epstein's residence without submitting the photos as evidence. The Court reserves judgment on the admission of any photo exhibits but indicates it finds the proposed line of questioning acceptable.
DOJ-OGR-00018343.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case, filed on August 10, 2022, concerning Jeffrey Epstein. The judge is discussing the admissibility of photographs taken in 2019 of Epstein's New York apartment, which the government wants to use to corroborate the 1994 testimony of a witness named "Jane". The judge outlines the legal reasoning for determining the relevance and potential prejudice of such evidence, particularly the difference between photos of fixed structures versus movable objects.
DOJ-OGR-00018339.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge is addressing a government request regarding the testimony of a witness using the pseudonym 'Kate.' The Judge notes that while Kate alleges sexual conduct with Jeffrey Epstein, she was over the age of consent at the time and is not a victim of the specific crimes charged in this indictment. However, her testimony is deemed relevant to Mann Act counts and 404(b) evidence. The Judge rules that her testimony regarding sexual details will be limited to avoid prejudice and that the jury will be instructed that the Court prohibited asking for those specific details.
DOJ-OGR-00018335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion at the end of a hearing where Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a witness list for the upcoming week. Prosecutor Ms. Comey agrees to provide the list to the Defense and the Court by the end of the day on Saturday. The Court then adjourns the proceedings until December 6, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018334.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court hearing filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330 (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor (Ms. Comey), and Defense (Mr. Everdell) are discussing the timeline for redacting and releasing photographs and videos to the public. The Judge emphasizes the need to release as much information to the public as possible while protecting the privacy of those testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00018332.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. In it, the judge dismisses a witness, Mr. Dawson, for the weekend, stipulating that he may only have logistical contact with the government as he is still under cross-examination. The judge and counsel then discuss and set a filing schedule for briefs related to the next witness, Maguire, who is scheduled to testify the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00018324.jpg
This document is a single page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a ruling by the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Dawson, allowing a line of questioning to proceed by stating the issue is already relevant and a prior objection was not made.
| 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 |
Support for David
A letter cited to show David understands that sports can teach valuable life lessons.
Support for David
A letter cited as an example of David supporting friends in their time of need, specifically during the author's pregnancy.
Ambiguous question regarding flights and sexual activity.
A note from the jury during trial that is described as 'entirely ambiguous'. The defendant argues it refers to a specific flight, but the document contends it is unclear which flight, where the sexual activity was to occur, or what question was being posed.
Adjournment of court
The judge asks counsel if there are any further matters to discuss. Both counsel respond in the negative. The judge then adjourns the court until the following day.
Scheduling of charging conference and conclusion of defen...
A verbal discussion in court between the judge and counsel for the government (Ms. Moe) and another party (Mr. Everdell) regarding the scheduling of a charging conference and estimating when the defense will rest its case.
Prohibition on Case Discussion and Media Consumption
Question 17 instructs the prospective juror to avoid all media coverage, internet searches, and discussions about the case with anyone (including family, friends, and colleagues) outside of the courtroom until their jury service is complete.
Evidence in a hearing
An affidavit from Susan Brune was put forth as evidence at a hearing.
No Subject
A note from Juror No. 1 was received, which caused Theresa Trzskoma to have doubts and start an investigation.
Ready to leave at 5:30
The judge acknowledges receiving a note from the jury stating they were ready to leave for the day at 5:30.
Adjournment of court proceedings
The document transcribes the final moments of a court session where the judge adjourns the hearing until the following morning, December 22, 2021.
Protective Order
The document references 'the Government's letter notes, see Dkt. No. 33 at 4,' which outlines the Government's position on the protective order.
Objection to recapitulation of charges
The Defendant objects to the detailed summary of the six counts, arguing it places unfair emphasis on the charges and requests that if summarized, each count be followed by a statement of Ms. Maxwell's denial and presumption of innocence.
Objection to 'Legal Principles' questions
The Government objects to the questions proposed by the defendant in the 'Legal Principles' section, claiming they are overly broad, argumentative, vague, confusing, and redundant.
Response to Government objections
The defense incorporates by reference their previous responses and objections to the Government's proposed Introduction and Charges section.
Confidentiality for Ms. Conrad's testimony
A letter submitted by Ms. Sternheim regarding Ms. Conrad's confidentiality, medical conditions, disciplinary proceedings, and intention to assert her Fifth Amendment right.
Ms. Maxwell's finances
A report by The Macalvins is mentioned as giving the Court a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances.
Ms. Maxwell's finances
A redacted report is mentioned alongside the Macalvins' report as providing a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances.
Unspecified question regarding the charge
A note from the jury that prompted legal arguments between the defense and the Court about proper jury instructions. The defendant argues the note shows the jury was mistaken about an element of the charge.
Basis for conviction on Count Four
Mr. Everdell refers to a note from the jury which he believes indicates they are considering convicting Ms. Maxwell based solely on travel to and from New Mexico.
Adjournment of proceedings
The court asks if counsel has any further matters. Both Ms. Moe (for the government) and Ms. Sternheim state they do not. The court then adjourns the session until the following morning.
Summary of Ms. Maxwell's conditions
An unsworn letter to the court summarizing information passed from prison guards to a prison lawyer to the prosecutor.
Schedule for sentencing and resolution of the severed per...
A joint letter from the prosecution and defense to the court regarding scheduling, referenced as Dkt. No. 574.
Limiting disclosure of identifying information
The Government filed motions (Gov't Mot. at 4-9) arguing for the protection of minor victims' identities.
Basis for a guilty verdict
The jurors sent a note asking if a defendant could be found guilty solely for aiding and abetting the flight from New Mexico, separate from the flight to New Mexico.
Request for transcripts and schedule clarification
A note from the jury requesting transcripts for five individuals (Shawn, Cimberly Espinosa, an unreadable name, Amanda Young, and Jason Richards) and asking for clarification on the deliberation schedule around the dates 12/31 and 1/1.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity