THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00011552.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, where attorneys debate whether Maxwell had a supervisory or leadership role over Sarah Kellen. One attorney argues against this, citing testimony from Larry Visoski and Cimberly Espinosa that Kellen was Epstein's assistant, not Maxwell's. In response, another attorney, Ms. Moe, references testimony from a witness named Carolyn who recalled Kellen scheduling massages while Maxwell was present at the Palm Beach residence, implying a connection.
DOJ-OGR-00011549.jpg
This court transcript excerpt from July 22, 2022, details an argument by a prosecutor, Ms. Moe, to the Court. Ms. Moe is establishing that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, held a leadership and supervisory role over Sarah Kellen within a criminal conspiracy, positioning Maxwell higher in the scheme's hierarchy than Kellen, who was an assistant to both Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011547.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell sentencing) dated July 22, 2022. The defense argues that money transfers for a helicopter and Larry Visoski holding car assets for Epstein do not prove the defendant's continued involvement in the conspiracy. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the financial evidence was offered to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against a sentencing enhancement, disputing the reliability of a 'message pad' and arguing that the conspiracy effectively ended in 2004, meaning 2003 guidelines should apply. The defense also contests a government claim that the defendant received $7 million into the 2007 time period.
DOJ-OGR-00011545.jpg
This is page 26 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the conspiracy charge cannot extend to 2005 because the individual named Carolyn was no longer a minor at that time (her birthday being in early January). Everdell also challenges the reliability and admissibility of an undated 'message pad' used as evidence, arguing it cannot be properly authenticated or dated.
DOJ-OGR-00011544.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a discussion about the date of a specific message, believed to be from November 2004. An attorney, Ms. Moe, argues that surrounding dates on message pads, flight records, and the defendant's travel with Epstein during that time support this date. The testimony of a crime victim named Carolyn is also cited as evidence of an ongoing conspiracy, which the defendant has the burden to prove withdrawal from.
DOJ-OGR-00011543.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on July 22, 2022. It details a legal argument between Ms. Moe and the Court regarding the timeline of a conspiracy, specifically whether it extended into 2005. Ms. Moe cites 'message pads' and a specific November 2004 message from an individual named Carolyn contacting 'the house' for an appointment as evidence that the conspiracy was still live during that period.
DOJ-OGR-00011542.jpg
This court transcript excerpt details a legal argument between counsel (MS. MOE) and the judge (THE COURT) about the end date of a criminal conspiracy. MS. MOE argues the conspiracy continued through the end of 2004, citing testimony from a witness named Carolyn who stated she was continually at Epstein's house during 2004 and 2005. The Court questions this line of reasoning, suggesting the actions described may constitute 'non-conspiracy conduct'.
DOJ-OGR-00011541.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge (THE COURT) and a government attorney (MS. MOE). The discussion centers on the legal end date of a conspiracy, with the government arguing it extended through 2004 and into 2005. The judge expresses concern that the evidence cited by the government is 'post conspiracy' because it falls after the date in the indictment and, crucially, after a person named Carolyn turned 18, an event upon which the conspiracy's continuation was legally dependent.
DOJ-OGR-00011537.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court hearing on July 22, 2022, discussing factual objections and the calculation of sentencing guidelines. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe participate in the discussion, with the Court adopting PSR recitations and outlining the process for guideline calculation. The defense contends a guideline calculation of 51 to 63 months' imprisonment, while the government's contention is cut off.
DOJ-OGR-00011526.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court hearing dated July 22, 2022, involving the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court overrules defense objections regarding factual assertions, specifically crediting testimony that Maxwell targeted Virginia Giuffre at Mar-a-Lago and confirming via bank statements that Epstein transferred approximately $23 million to Maxwell during their conspiracy. The Judge also confirms Maxwell's authorship of a specific essay based on computer metadata linking the file to user 'Ghislaine' and computer 'GMax'.
DOJ-OGR-00011523.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated July 22, 2022, involving Ms. Sternheim (defense) and Ms. Moe (government). The proceedings cover administrative confirmations of filings on ECF and a substantive discussion regarding the government's compliance with the 'Justice For All Act.' Specifically, Ms. Moe confirms that the government has notified six victims, proven at trial to be impacted, about the upcoming sentencing and their right to be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00002751.jpg
This document is Page 4 of a court filing (Document 165) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on March 9, 2021. The text is the Government's argument opposing the defendant's third request for bail, citing her extreme flight risk, substantial foreign ties (including citizenship in a non-extradition country), and lack of candor regarding finances. The Government argues that the defendant's offer to renounce citizenship and place assets in monitorship is insufficient to assure her appearance in court.
| 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 |
Clarification on Count Four
Indicated the jury thought it could convict if intent was for sexual activity in New Mexico.
Additional proposed redactions
Submission of additional redactions under seal
Clarification on Count Four
Question asking if the defendant can be found guilty if they aided the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico.
Victim Impact Statement
Description of psychological trauma, survivor guilt, and the grooming tactics used by Epstein and Maxwell.
Response to March 18, 2021 order
Government's response regarding redactions.
Request to call attorneys as witnesses
Request to call Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman to testify during the defense case-in-chief.
Sentencing Guidelines Calculation
Judge outlines offense levels, criminal history category, and imprisonment range.
Gov. Mem.
Cited as 'Gov. Mem. at 11', containing concessions regarding evidence.
Jury Instructions
Instructions regarding Mann Act, Counts Two and Four, and New York Penal Law Section 130.55
Gov. Mem.
Cited as 'Gov. Mem. at 11', containing concessions regarding evidence.
Dkt. No. 191
Correspondence regarding the subpoena.
Juror Questionnaire
Referenced as 'Juror 50's Questionnaire'
Motion for a New Trial
Referenced as 'The Defendant's Motion for a New Trial'
Oral argument on motion for new trial
Shechtman arguing for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Reply Brief
Described by Cohen as an effort to 'throw some dirt' on his client.
Explanation of evidence
Government explained its position in a letter regarding the deposition.
Jury Questionnaire (Question 48 and 25)
Questions regarding history of sexual abuse or being a victim of crime.
Post-Hearing Briefing
Argued Juror 50 was biased due to lack of concern for instructions during questionnaire.
Explanation of conduct
Testified he was distracted during questionnaire but attentive during trial.
Jury Instructions
Videotaped instructions explaining the selection process and nature of charges
Request for supplies and clarification
Requesting supplies, Matt's transcript, and asking a question regarding the definition of 'enticement'.
Response to Note
Providing supplies, Matt's transcript, and referring the jury to specific page/line numbers (21 and 33) regarding the definition of enticement.
Jury Selection Questionnaire
Questions 25, 48, and 49 regarding personal history.
Reply Brief
Contains allegations trying to make the client look sinister.
Redactions
Discussing the redaction of phone numbers for Carolyn and third parties.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity