THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00000685.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated September 3, 2019, related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein following his death. It features a concluding statement from an unnamed victim expressing relief that Epstein can no longer harm anyone, followed by attorney Mr. Edwards introducing a letter from an absent client, Michelle Licata. Ms. Licata's statement, read by Brittany Henderson, describes abuse occurring while she was in high school and criticizes the government for the previous 'secret deal' (Non-Prosecution Agreement) made with Epstein without her knowledge.
DOJ-OGR-00000677.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where victims are giving statements. An unidentified speaker discusses the societal problem of victim-blaming. Another victim, Jane Doe No. 3, begins her testimony, recounting how she moved to New York City 15 years prior to pursue modeling and was subsequently introduced to Mr. Epstein by a woman who portrayed him as someone who could help her career.
DOJ-OGR-00000675.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on September 3, 2019, related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It shows an attorney, Mr. Edwards, introducing his client as 'Jane Doe 2' to the court. Jane Doe 2 then begins her victim impact statement, speaking about the widespread nature of the trauma, the 'Me Too' movement, and her intention to address the difficult question of why victims stayed in the abusive situation.
DOJ-OGR-00000673.jpg
This document is a court transcript from September 3, 2019, containing victim impact statements in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. Courtney Wild identifies herself as a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse for years, accusing him of manipulating the justice system and calling him a coward for dying before he could be confronted in court. An attorney, Mr. Edwards, then introduces his client, Jane Doe No. 1, who begins her own statement by referencing Epstein's death.
DOJ-OGR-00000668.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court transcript from September 3, 2019, regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein). Attorney Mr. Edwards addresses the court regarding his clients (victims) who wish to speak, establishing protocols for those who wish to remain anonymous ('Jane Doe'). Edwards also acknowledges presentations made by attorneys Weingarten and Weinberg, expressing professional respect for Weinberg despite the adversarial nature of the case, and references the 'tragic ending' (Epstein's death) in relation to potential civil rights violations.
DOJ-OGR-00000663.jpg
This court transcript from a hearing on September 3, 2019, details an argument by Ms. Comey against the court conducting its own investigation into the death of Mr. Epstein. She informs the court that an active and separate investigation is already being conducted by a grand jury, Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Southern District of New York, and the FBI. Ms. Comey asserts that such an investigation is the proper function of these entities, not the court, especially concerning uncharged matters.
DOJ-OGR-00000657.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated September 3, 2019. It captures a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Weingarten, regarding the government's motion to dismiss an indictment. Mr. Weingarten clarifies that while his clients want the court to investigate the underlying events, they ultimately support the motion to dismiss the indictment itself.
DOJ-OGR-00000652.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from September 3, 2019 (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten addresses the court regarding the death of Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that prison employees falsified information and ignored orders never to leave Epstein alone. Weingarten states that despite the medical examiner's conclusion of suicide by hanging, the defense has received medical evidence suggesting the injuries were more consistent with assault.
DOJ-OGR-00000651.jpg
This document is a court transcript from September 3, 2019, detailing a conversation between the court, Ms. Comey, and defense counsel Mr. Weingarten. After confirming a protective order is self-executing, Mr. Weingarten begins to address the court about recent, serious events concerning his client's incarceration, referencing public statements by the Attorney General about "improprieties in the jail" and the subsequent removal of the warden and suspension of guards.
DOJ-OGR-00000648.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript from September 3, 2019, regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the court to support the dismissal of the indictment against Jeffrey Epstein following his death, citing Second Circuit law requiring abatement. Crucially, she states that this dismissal does not stop the government's ongoing investigation into potential coconspirators or future prosecutions of new defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00000640.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from a case filed on September 3, 2019 (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). It records the opening of the proceeding where the Judge asks for introductions. Government attorneys Maureen Comey and Alison Moe introduce themselves, noting the presence of FBI Special Agent Amanda Young and NYPD Detective Paul Byrne, while defense attorneys Reid Weingarten, Martin Weinberg, and Michael Miller (of Steptoe & Johnson) introduce themselves.
DOJ-OGR-00000621.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on August 6, 2019. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge, Ms. Moe (representing the government), and Mr. Weinberg (representing the defense) to schedule future court dates. Key dates set include an appearance on October 28, a briefing deadline on February 24, 2020, and an oral argument on March 12, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00000620.jpg
This is page 9 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein), filed on August 6, 2019. The Judge (The Court) rules to exclude time from the Speedy Trial Act calculations to allow for extensive pretrial preparation and tentatively schedules a trial for June 8, 2020. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg requests oral arguments for motions, which the court schedules for October 28, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00000619.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court transcript filed on August 6, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues for a 13-month timeline to prepare for trial, citing the need to litigate a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), unseal files for potential witnesses, and difficulties working with Epstein under current jail conditions. The Court responds by setting a monitoring period and excluding time through June 8.
DOJ-OGR-00000618.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from August 6, 2019, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg agrees the case meets complexity criteria for an extension. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues against a delay until September, advocating for a trial in May or June due to the 'public interest' in a swift resolution and the significant time passed since the charged conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00000617.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (the federal case against Jeffrey Epstein), filed on August 6, 2019. The transcript records a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Weinberg regarding the scheduling of the trial. They agree to target September 2020 for the trial date, as Mr. Weinberg argues that 13 months is necessary to prepare for a case of this 'magnitude and scope.'
DOJ-OGR-00000616.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court hearing on August 6, 2019, where Epstein's lawyer, Mr. Weinberg, requests a trial date of Labor Day 2020. Weinberg cites the need to review over a million pages of discovery and address complex constitutional issues related to Epstein's previous Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and double jeopardy protections. The text also notes Epstein's incarceration at the MCC and the defense's intent to file early motions to dismiss based on the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00000615.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 6, 2019, detailing a conversation between the judge and defense counsel, Mr. Weinberg, about scheduling a trial. Mr. Weinberg requests a preliminary trial date after Labor Day to allow time to assess his client, Mr. Epstein's, 'ability'. The judge questions this request in light of a presumed desire for a speedy trial, to which Weinberg responds by citing the length of the trial and the timing of discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00000613.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein), filed on August 6, 2019. The text details a scheduling conference where prosecutor Ms. Moe proposes an October 31 deadline for discovery. She notes a specific exception regarding materials seized from the defendant's New York residence, which the F.B.I. is currently reviewing, necessitating a privilege-review protocol with defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00000609.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 26, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The judge tentatively schedules a conference for the parties on July 31st and grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to exclude the intervening time under the Speedy Trial Act. The judge justifies the exclusion as necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ensure effective legal representation for all parties.
DOJ-OGR-00000606.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 26, 2019, in which a judge orally delivers a ruling concerning Mr. Epstein. The judge denies the defense's application for pretrial release and grants the government's application for continued remand, meaning Mr. Epstein will remain in custody. The judge states that a full written opinion will follow, which will address issues such as dangerousness, risk of flight, and the proposed bail package.
DOJ-OGR-00000584.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court hearing dated July 24, 2019, regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490 (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein). Courtney Wild addresses the court, identifying herself as a victim abused by Epstein starting at age 14 in Palm Beach, Florida. She urges the judge to deny Epstein bond and keep him in detention, citing public safety concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00000583.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court hearing filed on July 24, 2019 (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). It features testimony from Ms. Farmer confirming Jeffrey Epstein's inappropriate conduct toward her. Subsequently, attorney Brad Edwards introduces his client, Courtney Wild, identifying her as the 'Jane Doe' in a 2008 civil lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act connected to Epstein's non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00000582.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, featuring the testimony of Annie Farmer in a case against Jeffrey Epstein. Farmer states she met Epstein in New York at age 16 and argues against granting him bail, asserting that his wealth, privilege, and the discovery of photographs of young women would make it more difficult, not easier, for other victims to come forward.
DOJ-OGR-00000581.jpg
This court transcript from July 24, 2019, captures a dialogue between a lawyer, Mr. Boies, and the Court. Mr. Boies describes a pattern in a case against Mr. Epstein where cooperating witnesses would cease cooperation after being contacted by Epstein or his lawyers, who would provide them with legal counsel. These events coincided with unspecified payments, leading the Court to infer they were made to silence people.
| 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 |
Juror Bias / Sexual Abuse History
Juror 50 testified that his history of sexual abuse would not affect his impartiality.
Post-Hearing Brief
Dismissed Juror 50's responses as 'self-serving'.
Second Motion for Bail
Addressed concerns regarding flight risk and corroboration of evidence.
Response to Second Bail Motion
Opposition to bail.
Third Motion for Bail
Offer to renounce foreign citizenship.
Admissibility of Photographs
Discussion regarding whether photographs corroborate a witness's blind description of a residence interior given the time lapse.
Victim Impact Statements
Written submissions submitted in accordance with the Court's order.
Order de-designating documents
Motion to remove Highly Confidential status from materials.
Clarification on Count Four
Asked if defendant can be found guilty if she aided the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico where intent for sexual activity existed.
Maxwell Br. at 14-15
Speculated that the jury was focused on a 1997 flight.
Juror Questionnaire
Responses regarding impartiality, burden of proof, and media consumption (CNN).
Additional proposed redactions
Submission of additional redactions under seal
Maxwell Reply at 23
Argues that Rule 606 violates Maxwell's constitutional rights.
Juror misconduct inquiry
Statements about a second juror.
Presentation of Photos
Everdell explains they only have single copies of certain photos received that morning and proposes walking them to the jury row rather than distributing copies.
Withdrawal of arrest warrant request
Withdrawal of the request to issue an arrest warrant for witness Kelly.
Disclosure of Maxwell grand jury materials
Letters urging broad disclosure of investigative records regarding Epstein and Maxwell, provided identities are redacted.
Motion to [Unseal/Redact]
Government proposes to redact names and personally identifying information of victims and third parties.
Answering Brief (Ans.Br.)
Government claims Maxwell is attempting to have the Court weigh in on investigative methods.
Briefing Schedule
Proposal for a briefing schedule after counsel confers.
Question on Count Four
Under Count Four, if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico, where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?
Opposition to release
Cited two pages of cases regarding health risks and dangerousness.
Sidebar Request
Requesting a sidebar to discuss proving an inconsistent statement of a prior witness.
Sentencing Arguments
Defendant's brief cited at page 12 regarding legislative history.
Page 32 note 13
Stated defendants had no basis to inquire whether Conrad was lying.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity