THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00000580.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, detailing a discussion between a judge and several lawyers. The conversation covers an agreement between the U.S. Attorney and defense counsel regarding whether trustees or guards will be armed. Attorney Mr. Boies, representing a victim, interrupts to clarify that payments of $250,000 and $100,000 were made by the defendant at a time when a legal proceeding was pending, contradicting a prior statement by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00000577.jpg
This is page 67 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. The proceedings involve a discussion regarding victims wishing to be heard, with Mr. Boies present to represent them. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg clarifies that Epstein does not concede the government's evidence and intends to mount a defense.
DOJ-OGR-00000571.jpg
This is page 61 of a court transcript from the Jeffrey Epstein case (1:19-cr-00490-RMB), filed on July 24, 2019. Prosecutor Rossmiller argues before the Court that pre-trial detention does not prevent a defendant from preparing a robust defense, citing the 'Zarrab' case as a precedent where a detained defendant had ample access to counsel and document review. The prosecution expresses willingness to consider factors like space and document review capabilities for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00000568.jpg
This is page 58 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). The page captures a debate between the Judge (The Court) and defense attorney Mr. Weinberg regarding the fairness of bail conditions and access to counsel. Weinberg argues that the unique complexity of the case (facing a well-resourced prosecution and 'a million pages of discovery') justifies different treatment than typical defendants at Rikers Island, while the Court counters by highlighting the serious nature of crimes faced by indigent defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00000566.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. An unidentified speaker, likely an attorney, argues before the court about the bail conditions for Mr. Epstein, specifically advocating for the use of a private guard. The speaker cites Second Circuit precedents, including the Esposito case, to argue that such a condition is not discriminatory and is appropriate given that the flight risk arguments are predicated on the defendant's wealth.
DOJ-OGR-00000564.jpg
This document is page 54 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues for Epstein's release on bail, citing high-profile defendants like Madoff and Skilling who honored their bail conditions and surrendered for prison. The Judge asks if those precedents involved a 'presumption' of detention, which Weinberg admits they may not have, but argues that Epstein's 14-year history of non-danger negates that presumption.
DOJ-OGR-00000562.jpg
This document is page 52 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019 (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Attorney Mr. Weinberg argues with the Court about the confidentiality of the defendant's financial information, specifically in the context of a bail determination. Notably, Weinberg explicitly states that the defendant (implied to be Jeffrey Epstein) does not possess a billion dollars while discussing hypothetical bail amounts of $20 million.
DOJ-OGR-00000560.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on July 24, 2019, concerning Mr. Epstein. The judge expresses dissatisfaction with a provided financial summary, calling it unverified and not detailed enough. In response, Mr. Weinberg, representing Epstein, states that his client is prepared to sign any bond the court requires, including one for $100 million, to guarantee his appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00000557.jpg
This document is page 47 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein (1:19-cr-00490). Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg is arguing against the government's claim that payments of $250,000 and $100,000 made by the defendant constituted witness tampering or obstruction of justice. Weinberg contends these were acts of generosity to employees or friends and argues that, under the Aguilar Supreme Court precedent, these actions do not rise to federal obstruction because there was no pending judicial proceeding at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00000554.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. An unidentified speaker, likely an attorney, explains the complexities of a client's sex offender registration obligations under the federal SORNA statute due to having multiple residences in states like Florida and New Mexico. The speaker notes that while efforts were made to comply, authorities in New Mexico ultimately determined that registration was not required, and the court acknowledges understanding the situation.
DOJ-OGR-00000553.jpg
This document is page 43 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues that his client has meticulously complied with sex offender registration requirements for nine years, informing authorities in the Virgin Islands of travel to Paris, Florida, and New York. The Judge (The Court) questions Weinberg about the specific criteria for reporting presence (the 10-day rule) and questions the registration requirements in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00000551.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. In it, a lawyer named Mr. Weinberg argues that his client, a tier 3 registrant, has a long history of compliance with daily monitoring and has been careful to avoid any violations. Mr. Weinberg explains that his client was advised he did not need to physically appear in New York and details how his client's travel, monitored from the Virgin Islands, is carefully reported.
DOJ-OGR-00000548.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 24, 2019, in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The presiding judge discusses a previous SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing where Judge Pickholz was reportedly 'taken aback' because the defense (Kirkland & Ellis) and the prosecution (ADA from Vance's office) unusually joined together to argue for lowering the defendant's sex offender classification from level 3 to level 1, contrary to the state board's recommendation.
DOJ-OGR-00000546.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, where attorney Mr. Weinberg is defending his client, Mr. Epstein. Weinberg argues that Epstein is not an out-of-control offender or a flight risk, citing previous intensive investigations by state and federal authorities in 2005 and 2006 and the high level of publicity as reasons why any misconduct would already be known. The judge questions the basis of Weinberg's claims about his client's character.
DOJ-OGR-00000545.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A speaker, Mr. Weinberg, argues to the court that the immense publicity surrounding Mr. Epstein, combined with his wealth, makes him an attractive target for both civil and criminal complaints. Weinberg contends that this unprecedented level of attention would motivate any individuals victimized by Epstein after 2005 to come forward.
DOJ-OGR-00000543.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, capturing a discussion between a speaker, Mr. Weinberg, and the Court. Mr. Weinberg argues that a defendant's 14 years of self-discipline should be considered evidence against future risk, questioning the government's ability to prove otherwise. The Court expresses significant interest in this argument, referencing government-supported studies on long-term recidivism among sex offenders that it has reviewed.
DOJ-OGR-00000542.jpg
Transcript from a July 24, 2019 court hearing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) where Epstein's defense argues for his release. The defense claims Epstein 'disciplined himself' and cites a 14-year gap in allegations (referencing 2002 and 2005) as proof he is no longer a danger. The Judge ('The Court') challenges this position, quoting the defense's previous letter which stated any danger had 'abated' or 'evaporated.'
DOJ-OGR-00000540.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Mr. Weinberg, and the presiding judge. Mr. Weinberg argues that his client's case is not a typical trafficking case and that the legal presumption for detention is rebuttable. The discussion focuses on the two prongs for rebuttal—danger to the community and flight risk—and the different legal standards of proof required for each.
DOJ-OGR-00000539.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, concerning Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The text captures a dialogue between the Court and defense attorney Mr. Weinberg. The Court lists various crimes involving minors that carry a presumption of remand. Mr. Weinberg acknowledges the gravity of the allegations against Jeffrey Epstein but argues that his case does not fit the typical profile ('heartland') of commercial sex trafficking statutes (1591) which usually involve servitude, enslavement, and pimps.
DOJ-OGR-00000534.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 24, 2019, related to the Jeffrey Epstein case (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Attorneys Weinberg and Rossmiller discuss the history of the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Court, specifically referencing a March 2008 meeting in Washington between the defense and the DOJ's Criminal Division/Child Exploitation Unit. The discussion highlights that the defense argued the case lacked interstate elements needed for federal prosecution, and the DOJ subsequently issued a letter in May 2008 endorsing prosecutorial discretion due to the 'unusual' facts of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000533.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. Attorney Mr. Weinberg argues that the timing of Epstein's arrest was suspicious relative to a CVRA filing in Florida. He asserts that high-level DOJ officials, specifically Alice Fisher (then Head of the Criminal Division) and Sigal Mandelker (currently Undersecretary of the Treasury), were directly involved in approving the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00000529.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. In it, an attorney named Mr. Rossmiller responds to the Court, stating that Florida police reports suggest the defendant harassed individuals through agents or investigators. Mr. Rossmiller also explains that the government took no position on the defendant's application to seal financial information because they were unsure what would be submitted and had little time to respond.
DOJ-OGR-00000528.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. In it, a representative for the government argues against a defendant's release, citing a significant danger to victims and witnesses. The government alleges the defendant previously instructed people to lie to law enforcement and has recently sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to two individuals, supported by police reports from Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000526.jpg
This court transcript from July 24, 2019, captures a government representative, Mr. Rossmiller, arguing against a defendant's request for home confinement. Rossmiller contends the defendant's vast financial resources make them a flight risk, a claim bolstered by the recent discovery of a safe in the defendant's mansion containing large amounts of cash, diamonds, and a fraudulent foreign passport. The Court questions the specifics of this new evidence, such as whether the cash had been counted.
DOJ-OGR-00000524.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (dated July 24, 2019) in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Prosecutor Mr. Rossmiller argues against bail, citing a strengthened investigation, the defendant's potential 45-year sentence, and the admission that the government can prove the defendant engaged in sex acts with minors. Rossmiller also criticizes the defendant's financial disclosure form as cursory and insufficient.
| 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