THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00011636.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The judge instructs Mr. Pagliuca on the preferred procedure for presenting documents during cross-examination, emphasizing the use of pre-organized, tabbed paper binders for efficiency. The judge also provides for exceptions, allowing for documents not in the binder to be presented either as paper copies or on a screen.
DOJ-OGR-00011635.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural debate between the Judge ('The Court') and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the mechanics of presenting documents during cross-examination, specifically debating the use of physical binders versus electronic displays. The Judge instructs counsel to prepare binders for potential use to ensure smooth proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00011634.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the logistics of maintaining witness anonymity in the courtroom. Specifically, they discuss preventing the public from seeing identifying information on counsel's screens while ensuring the government and jurors have access to necessary documents.
DOJ-OGR-00011633.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) detailing a procedural argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge. The discussion centers on how to present documents designated for 'refreshing recollection' without exposing identifying information to the public via courtroom screens. The Judge suggests using paper to ensure anonymity, while Mr. Pagliuca argues this is impractical due to the 'thousands of pages' involved.
DOJ-OGR-00011631.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Judge, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the testimony of a records custodian and the government's failure to list a specific financial institution prior to trial. Additionally, Mr. Pagliuca requests permission to use electronic methods for impeaching or refreshing the recollection of witnesses during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011630.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a debate between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, before the judge regarding a potential conflict of interest with a juror. The juror works at the same financial institution as a witness, and Ms. Moe proposes questioning the juror, while Ms. Sternheim argues against it as unnecessary and potentially prejudicial.
DOJ-OGR-00011629.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, an attorney, Ms. Moe, raises a concern to the court about prospective Juror No. 93. Ms. Moe explains that this juror is an attorney at the same financial institution where a key trial witness works as an executive director, creating a potential conflict of interest that has been flagged for both the court and the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00011628.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument where the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) is barred by the Court from calling an attorney as a witness without prior briefing due to privilege concerns regarding 'Minor Victim 4'. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) then requests clarification on whether the jury will be instructed during preliminary instructions that witnesses will use pseudonyms, to which the Court agrees to address before opening statements.
DOJ-OGR-00011627.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the Court regarding an issue where the defense has subpoenaed the attorney representing 'Minor Victim 4' to testify at trial. The government argues they cannot understand what admissible testimony this attorney could offer that isn't covered by attorney-client privilege and indicates they will move to preclude it.
DOJ-OGR-00011625.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Comey (Government) argues that the defense should not be allowed to cross-examine a witness regarding juvenile arrests and old misdemeanors, and asks for a pretrial ruling to determine if she needs to disclose these facts on direct examination to 'draw the sting.' The Judge orders the parties to have a 'mature, reasonable discussion' to resolve agreed-upon issues and to submit only genuine legal disputes in writing.
DOJ-OGR-00011624.jpg
This court transcript excerpt from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion where government counsel, Ms. Comey, raises an issue with the court. She explains that the defense intends to cross-examine government witnesses on topics the government deems improper—including sensitive personal information and old criminal convictions—and requests to submit a written briefing on the matter. The court agrees but requires the parties to first attempt to resolve and narrow their dispute through further discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00011619.jpg
This document is page 100 of a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge advises the defendant of their right to appeal the conviction and sentence within 14 days. The Court also discusses administrative matters, specifically setting the 'end of the conspiracy date' to July 2004 for the purpose of the judgment, to which neither the prosecution (Ms. Moe) nor the defense (Ms. Sternheim) objects at that moment.
DOJ-OGR-00011607.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, in which a judge explains the legal considerations for an upcoming sentencing. The judge states the guideline range is 188 to 235 months but clarifies that, due to the Supreme Court's 'Booker' decision, this is only one of many factors to be considered under federal statute 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The judge outlines these factors, including the nature of the offense, deterrence, and public safety, before concluding that the sentence must be sufficient but not greater than necessary.
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-00011592.jpg
This document is page 73 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on July 22, 2022. It features the conclusion of a victim impact statement by Ms. Ransome, who condemns Maxwell's lack of remorse and asserts her own survival. Following this, the Court introduces Ms. Stein, who begins her statement by recounting her move to New York in 1991 to attend FIT and her subsequent employment at Henri Bendel, where she encountered Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011588.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022. It captures a portion of a victim impact statement hearing, where the court acknowledges written submissions from Ms. Bryant, Ms. Maria Farmer, and Ms. Helm before hearing live testimony from Ms. Ransome. Ms. Ransome begins her testimony by describing the lasting trauma from a "hideous trap set by Epstein, Maxwell and other co-conspirators" and recounts how she was approached by an "Epstein-Maxwell recruiter" named Natalya after moving to New York at age 22.
DOJ-OGR-00011586.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains a victim impact statement written by Virginia Giuffre (referred to as Virginia Roberts by the court) and read by her counsel. The statement directly accuses Maxwell of spotting Giuffre at Mar-a-Lago in the summer of 2000, procuring her for Jeffrey Epstein, and participating in the subsequent abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00011575.jpg
This document is page 56 of a court transcript from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 22, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe is addressing the court, requesting an above-guideline sentence of multiple decades in prison for Maxwell's role in a child exploitation scheme. The prosecutor specifically names victims Jane, Kate, Annie, Virginia, Carolyn, and Melissa, detailing that Maxwell first met Jane at a summer camp in 1994 when Jane was 14.
DOJ-OGR-00011574.jpg
This is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion about the order of statements. Counsel Ms. Moe asks the judge if victims should speak before or after the main parties. The judge clarifies the intended sequence is government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, to which all parties present agree before the court takes a luncheon recess.
DOJ-OGR-00011572.jpg
This document is page 53 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of assets in the Presentence Report (PSR), specifically noting a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge determines that Maxwell has failed to establish an inability to pay a fine, citing the bequest and $3.8 million in assets reported in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00011571.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the court. Mr. Everdell argues that a bequest made to an estate currently in bankruptcy should not be considered a firm asset for the purpose of calculating fines, as the estate has outstanding victims' claims and the bequest itself is likely to be contested. He states it was disclosed on a financial affidavit out of an abundance of caution and good faith.
DOJ-OGR-00011570.jpg
This court transcript from July 22, 2022, details a discussion about victims in a conspiracy, establishing a recruitment chain where the defendant recruited Virginia, who recruited Carolyn, who then recruited Melissa. The court agrees with the government's position on this matter and overrules objections related to Carolyn's prior testimony about her age. The document also notes the defendant's objection to including a $10 million bequest from Epstein in her assets when determining her ability to pay fines.
DOJ-OGR-00011569.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on July 22, 2022, concerning sentencing guidelines. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, and the Court discuss the calculation of the total offense level, resulting in a guideline range of 188 to 235. Mr. Everdell, while agreeing with the calculation, formally preserves an objection to the government's request to treat two individuals, Virginia and Melissa, as separate offense groups, an issue the Court has previously ruled on.
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-00011553.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, concerning Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text features arguments between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the prosecution regarding sentencing enhancements, specifically debating whether Maxwell exercised 'supervisory authority' over an employee named Kellen who scheduled massage appointments. The defense argues that Maxwell's presence in the house while Kellen worked does not constitute supervision, while the prosecution relies on pilot testimony to establish a chain of command.
| 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