THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001165.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues against granting bail to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The prosecution details her sophisticated efforts to evade detection in the year prior to her arrest, including purchasing a home through a trust, using aliases with real estate agents, and holding assets/credit cards under false names. The document asserts these actions prove she is a flight risk capable of assuming a new identity.
DOJ-OGR-00001153.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Government's opposition) filed on December 18, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text argues against the defendant's 'Renewed Bail Application,' stating that the defense is reiterating arguments already rejected by the Court. The prosecution asserts the defendant remains a 'substantial actual risk of flight' and highlights the 'horrendous conduct' involving the sexual abuse of minors charged in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00001149.jpg
This document is page 4 (stamped page 7 of 36) of a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It details the Court's reasoning for denying bail and detaining Maxwell, citing her serious flight risk, lack of U.S. ties, French citizenship (non-extradition), and extraordinary financial resources. The Court also noted that Maxwell's financial disclosures to Pretrial Services were likely incomplete.
DOJ-OGR-00001148.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Document 100) from case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 28, 2020. It details the procedural history following the defendant's arrest on July 2, 2020, specifically focusing on the July 14, 2020 bail hearing where the defense argued for release based on family ties, offers of private security, and cooperation with the government following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest. The text includes transcripts of defense counsel offering to provide further financial verification and suretor information to satisfy the court's concerns regarding flight risk and financial transparency.
DOJ-OGR-00001083.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 79 of the proceeding, page 142 of the filing) dated April 1, 2021, related to Case 21-770 involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense attorney concludes arguments for release on strict bail conditions, asserting the government failed to carry its burden. The Court then begins to deliver a ruling, outlining the legal standards for detention versus bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, and stating that high-profile status or wealth should not influence the application of the law.
DOJ-OGR-00001080.jpg
This court transcript from April 1, 2021, details a discussion between The Court and Ms. Moe, representing the government, regarding the legal relevance of victim statements in a bail analysis. Following a point raised by Mr. Cohen, The Court seeks the government's position. Ms. Moe clarifies that while victims have a right to participate under the Crime Victims Rights Act, their statements are not part of the government's motion, and their substance should not be considered by the court for the bail analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00001079.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, from Case 21-770 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that the defendant poses a flight risk and has failed to meet the burden of production to rebut the presumption of detention, citing recommendations from Pretrial Services and victims' requests. The Judge questions Ms. Moe regarding defense attorney Mr. Cohen's arguments about the government's burden of proof regarding flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001070.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, featuring defense attorney Mr. Cohen addressing the Court. Cohen requests more time to arrange sureties for a bail package, citing extreme difficulties caused by his client's (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell) harsh detention conditions at the MDC. He describes these conditions as equivalent to solitary confinement, including constant lighting, isolation, lack of showers, and confiscation of legal materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001069.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues for bail, claiming the government's indictment of conduct from 1994-1997 is tactical and lacks physical evidence like tapes or video. He asserts that the client has been kept in custody 'by design' and references the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00001068.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed 04/01/2021) appearing to be from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 21-770). Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues during a bail proceeding that the government's indictment relies on 25-year-old conduct specifically to circumvent the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). He cites the 'Annabi case' regarding the scope of plea agreements and claims the prosecution's strategy is tactical.
DOJ-OGR-00001058.jpg
This document is page 117 of a court transcript from Case 21-770, dated April 1, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues before the Court that his legal team (including Haddon Morgan) had informed the government they were available for the voluntary surrender of their client, Ms. Maxwell, should an indictment occur. Cohen expresses frustration that the government arrested Maxwell without contacting them first and criticizes the government's reply brief for attempting to 'throw dirt' on his client.
DOJ-OGR-00001057.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. A defense attorney, Mr. Cohen, argues that his client has remained in the U.S. and that counsel has been in frequent contact with the government, suggesting a voluntary surrender could have been arranged. The judge interrupts to seek explicit clarification on whether the defense actually offered to arrange a surrender in the event of an indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00001047.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues to the Judge that the government is unfairly introducing new facts late in the process, depriving the defense of a written response. Cohen then pivots to defending his client's character, explicitly stating she is 'not Epstein' and not a 'monster,' emphasizing her strong family and professional support network present on the call anonymously for safety reasons.
DOJ-OGR-00001046.jpg
A transcript from an April 2021 court hearing where defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues for the release of his client (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell) on bail. Cohen cites the Bail Reform Act, the difficulty of preparing a defense during the COVID crisis while in custody, and explicitly argues that his client is 'not Jeffrey Epstein' and is being unfairly portrayed by the government and media as a 'sinister person.'
DOJ-OGR-00001044.jpg
This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, detailing the beginning of a victim's testimony. A victim, identified as Annie Farmer, begins her statement by accusing Ghislaine Maxwell of being a sexual predator who groomed and abused her when she was 16. The transcript also includes a quote from a 'Jane Doe' expressing fear that the accused is a flight risk with international connections.
DOJ-OGR-00001042.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. Prosecutor Ms. Moe reads a written statement from an anonymous victim ('Jane Doe') to the court. The statement accuses Ghislaine Maxwell of sadistic manipulation, claiming she was 'in charge,' recruited other victims for amusement, and was essential to Jeffrey Epstein's ability to commit abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00001038.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, where a speaker, Ms. Moe, is arguing that the defendant is a flight risk. Ms. Moe presents evidence of the defendant's significant wealth, citing bank records from January 2019 that show an annual income between $200,000 and $500,000, a net worth over $10 million, and a trust account with over $4 million in assets.
DOJ-OGR-00001037.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021. It features a dialogue between the Court and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the details of the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) arrest. The discussion focuses on the defendant's refusal to open the door for law enforcement and the specific allegation that she attempted to block location monitoring by wrapping a mobile phone in foil.
DOJ-OGR-00001036.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court hearing dated April 1, 2021, involving prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Judge. Ms. Moe argues that the defendant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) poses a flight risk because she successfully purchased real estate under a fake name and lived undetected for a year. The Judge questions why this specific information was not presented until the government's reply brief.
DOJ-OGR-00001035.jpg
This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, capturing a dialogue between a judge and Ms. Moe regarding a defendant's bail. The judge raises the issue of the defendant's motive for hiding—whether it was to evade authorities or for privacy from the press, especially given the public interest following Mr. Epstein's indictment. Ms. Moe argues that the motive is irrelevant; the crucial fact for the bail determination is that the defendant has demonstrated a clear ability and willingness to live in hiding.
DOJ-OGR-00001027.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) involving a detention hearing. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that the female defendant (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell) should be denied bail because she poses an extreme flight risk, has significant undisclosed financial means, strong international ties, and is charged with the sexual abuse of minors. Defense attorney Mr. Cohen is present, and the judge indicates that alleged victims will also be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00001026.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. The Judge sets a firm trial date for July 12, 2021, and rules to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act to allow for discovery and defense preparation. The proceedings then transition to arguments regarding the government's motion for detention (bail hearing), involving attorneys Mr. Cohen (Defense) and Ms. Moe (Government).
DOJ-OGR-00001025.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding where the judge, defense counsel (Mr. Cohen), and government counsel (Ms. Moe) discuss scheduling. The court sets a trial date for July 12, 2021. The government, through Ms. Moe, requests that the time between the hearing and the trial be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act to allow for discovery and motions.
DOJ-OGR-00001024.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021, documenting a scheduling hearing. The Judge sets the trial commencement date for July 12, 2021, and establishes a timeline for discovery disclosures and pretrial motions running from August 2020 through January 2021. Ms. Moe, representing the government, estimates the prosecution's case will take two weeks, but suggests blocking out three weeks total for the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001023.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding dated April 1, 2021 (likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell bail hearing). The text details the government's protocol for notifying victims via an opt-in process and outlines how three specific victims will participate in the bail hearing: one via memorandum, one via a statement read by the government, and one speaking directly. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Cohen confirm they have conferred and agreed upon a schedule with the 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 |
Remote Testimony / Rule 15
Discussion regarding the legal standards (Rule 15) for permitting a witness to testify remotely due to a positive COVID test.
Conference Call
Court inquired why defense counsel was presenting two different versions of facts.
July 21st letter
A letter submitted to the court.
Information regarding the investigation of Juror No. 1.
A letter dated July 21 was sent to the Court containing information about an investigation into Juror No. 1. The Court questions the witness about whether her law firm would have disclosed this information without being prompted.
Information regarding the investigation of Juror No. 1.
A letter dated July 21 was sent to the Court containing information about an investigation into Juror No. 1. The Court questions the witness about whether her law firm would have disclosed this information without being prompted.
Unknown (Identified as Government Exhibit 28)
Letter at the Court identified as Government Exhibit 28.
A matter related to a fact that had come to light after a...
A letter submitted to the court on July 21st, which included an attached Westlaw opinion. The questioning revolves around whether this letter was intended to mislead the court about when the information was discovered.
Disclosure of research/internal communications
A letter addressing the Court's question regarding information on Juror Number One, disclosing the firm's earlier research.
Legal representation of facts
Comparison of facts in this letter versus a legal brief.
SORA Registration
Explaining that the offense is registrable in Florida and recognized by NY State Board of Examiners.
Epstein's Compliance
Stating Epstein has already registered and recognizes the duty, but reserving right to appeal.
Scheduling
Reference to a statement made 'yesterday' regarding witness timing and closing arguments.
Awareness of issues concerning Juror Number One [Conrad]
A conference call where the Court sought to determine if the defendants were aware of disturbing information about Juror Conrad. Trzaskoma responded on the call.
Argument for unsealing
Media organizations arguing for public access to the housing letters.
Question 49
Juror 50 answered a question regarding his history, which the court notes he did not read closely.
Financial Disclosure
Epstein will provide more specific information regarding assets in a sealed supplemental disclosure.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity