THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00000374.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing, filed as part of a 2019 criminal case. The text details arguments regarding Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender registration status in New York, specifically arguing against a 'Level Three' designation which would require frequent 90-day renewals. The defense argues Epstein is compliant, rarely stays in New York for long periods, and that other jurisdictions have required lower or no registration.
DOJ-OGR-00000372.jpg
This document is page 6 of a transcript from a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing filed on July 15, 2019. The discussion involves attorneys Ms. Gaffney and Ms. Musumeci addressing the Court regarding a board recommendation and access to prosecutor files. Ms. Musumeci clarifies for the record that Jeffrey Epstein is not a resident of New York, but rather maintains a vacation home there, with his primary residence being in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
DOJ-OGR-00000371.jpg
This document is a transcript from a SORA hearing, filed on July 15, 2019, detailing a conversation between the Court and Ms. Gaffney. The Court questions Ms. Gaffney about her failure to directly contact the original prosecutor on a case, labeling her information as hearsay and expressing shock at the lack of a thorough investigation. Ms. Gaffney defends her actions by stating she spoke with the prosecutor who took over the case and also called the prosecutor.
DOJ-OGR-00000370.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing, filed in July 2019. The Judge expresses shock that the prosecution ('The People,' represented by Ms. Gaffney) is arguing for a 'downward modification' (reduced risk level) in a case the Judge finds 'troubling.' Ms. Gaffney explains that despite the unusual nature of the request, they are bound by board guidelines not to rely on unindicted conduct, and notes that her attempts to get clear evidence or interview notes from Florida authorities were unsuccessful because 'they never did' interview the women on their own.
DOJ-OGR-00000369.jpg
This document is a transcript from a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing on July 15, 2019. The dialogue is between Ms. Gaffney and the Court, discussing whether the lack of an indictment by the prosecutor's office constitutes strong evidence that an offense did not occur. The Court expresses surprise at the prosecutor's actions and a 'Level Three' finding by a risk assessment board, finding the situation unprecedented.
DOJ-OGR-00000368.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing for Jeffrey Epstein filed on July 15, 2019. Defense attorneys Jay Lefkowitz and Sandra Musumeci appear for Epstein, who is not present, while Jennifer Gaffney appears for the People. The discussion centers on a 'Level Three' recommendation from the board and the prosecution's hesitation to rely on the Florida probable cause affidavit because Florida only pursued one case despite multiple victims listed.
DOJ-OGR-00021072.jpg
This page from a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) argues two main points regarding the Defendant's conviction and sentencing. First, it claims the Court failed to correct a juror misunderstanding regarding 'Count Four,' specifically whether the illegal sexual activity involving victim 'Jane' had to occur in New York versus New Mexico. Second, it argues the sentencing guidelines were miscalculated, specifically disputing an 'aggravating role adjustment' regarding the supervision of another criminal participant.
DOJ-OGR-00021045.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing the conclusion of a legal proceeding. The judge clarifies the guideline fine range is 20 to 200,000 per count, which is confirmed by counsel. Before adjourning, the judge thanks the victims, their counsel, counsel for Ms. Maxwell, and counsel for the government.
DOJ-OGR-00021036.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the explanatory commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, when offered a chance to respond, declines to make a verbal argument and instead rests on her previously submitted written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00021035.jpg
A page from a court transcript (likely the sentencing hearing in US v. Maxwell, filed in the 2023 appeal) debating sentencing enhancements. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues that testimony from pilots proves Maxwell had supervisory authority over Sarah Kellen within the conspiracy. Defense attorney Everdell rebuts that Maxwell's presence while Kellen scheduled 'massage appointments' does not constitute supervision. The defense also mentions a 'five-point enhancement for repeated and dangerous sex offenders.'
DOJ-OGR-00021034.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. The defense argues against a sentencing 'leadership enhancement' for Ghislaine Maxwell, citing testimony from pilot Larry Visoski and assistant Cimberly Espinosa to prove that Sarah Kellen worked solely for Jeffrey Epstein, not Maxwell. In rebuttal, the government (Ms. Moe) cites testimony from a victim named Carolyn, who stated that Maxwell remained present at the Palm Beach residence even when Kellen took over scheduling massages.
DOJ-OGR-00021030.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 29, filed 02/28/2023) involving the sentencing or legal arguments in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues to the Judge that Maxwell qualifies for a sentencing enhancement as an 'organizer or leader' because trial evidence proved she supervised Sarah Kellen. The discussion centers on whether the criminal activity involved five participants or was 'otherwise extensive,' with the government asserting Maxwell's supervision of Kellen satisfies the legal requirements.
DOJ-OGR-00021029.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 28, 2023, likely from the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). Defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) argues that evidence of money moving to buy a helicopter does not prove the defendant's continued criminal involvement, comparing it to pilot Larry Visoski holding assets for Epstein without being a co-conspirator. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) counters that the financial evidence was introduced to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021021.jpg
This document is a page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on April 29, 2022, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion regarding pre-indictment delay. The Court ruled that the Defendant failed to prove the Government intentionally delayed the indictment to gain a tactical advantage or that the delay caused actual prejudice to her defense. The text notes that trial testimony provided legitimate explanations for the timing of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021016.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (likely a Government brief or Court Opinion) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's requests regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'travel to New York' and the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the UK, and Florida. The text argues that the Court's instructions were legally sound and that the Defendant's proposals would have confused the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00021013.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) discusses a dispute over a jury note regarding 'Count Four.' The argument centers on whether the jury could convict based solely on conduct in New Mexico versus the required New York law violation. The text details a debate over the placement of a comma in the jury's note and the Court's subsequent instruction to the jury to focus on New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00021005.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court order (Document 657) filed on April 29, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page outlines the 'Applicable Law' regarding the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause and 'prejudicial variance' or 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Second Circuit cases) to define the standards for determining if a defendant was convicted of a crime different from the one charged in the indictment. The Court denies the Defendant's motion on this basis.
DOJ-OGR-00020963.jpg
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on April 1, 2022, addressing arguments by the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) regarding Juror 50. The Court analyzes Juror 50's failure to disclose sexual abuse by a stepbrother on his jury questionnaire (Questions 48 and 49). The Court finds Juror 50's explanation—that he skimmed the questionnaire and did not consider his abuser to be 'family' at the time—to be credible and not an act of deliberate concealment.
DOJ-OGR-00020959.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court ruling in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), addressing potential juror misconduct. The Court analyzes Juror 50's failure to disclose past sexual abuse on a questionnaire, concluding that the errors were not deliberate but rather the result of rushing and carelessness. The judge credits Juror 50's testimony, citing his calm demeanor, consistency, and the fact that he testified under a grant of immunity with the threat of perjury.
DOJ-OGR-00020954.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the Court's assessment of 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire; the juror testified that this history did not affect his impartiality. The document also notes the denial of a defense request to stay the ruling pending the release of a documentary featuring said juror.
DOJ-OGR-00020953.jpg
This document is a court order from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) detailing the testimony of 'Juror 50' regarding inaccuracies in his jury questionnaire. Juror 50 admitted to being a victim of childhood sexual abuse by a stepbrother but claimed his failure to disclose this was an inadvertent mistake caused by rushing, distraction, and misunderstanding the questions. The text outlines his justifications, including technical issues, a recent breakup, and a belief that the sheer volume of jurors made his specific answers less critical.
DOJ-OGR-00020946.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order (Document 653) filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's finding that 'Juror 50' did not deliberately provide false testimony on his jury questionnaire but rather rushed through it carelessly. The Court concludes that Juror 50 was not biased, can serve impartially despite being a survivor of sexual abuse, and would not have been struck for cause even if he had disclosed his history accurately.
DOJ-OGR-00020913.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a procedural argument between counsel. Government counsel Ms. Moe pushes for a quick, by-Friday deadline for a post-trial briefing on an issue concerning Juror 50's testimony. Opposing counsel Ms. Sternheim argues for a two-week extension, citing the issue's importance and an upcoming trial she is starting on the 16th. The judge acknowledges the issue's significance but appears to favor a more expedited schedule.
DOJ-OGR-00020912.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) involving the questioning (voir dire) of a potential juror. The text covers a sidebar conference where defense counsel (Ms. Sternheim) requests the Judge ask the juror if they read the case summary, specifically regarding the charges. The Judge then reads a portion of the indictment summary to the juror, stating that the defendant is charged with conspiring with and aiding Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors between 1994 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00020909.jpg
This document is a transcript page (A-283) from Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), documenting a voir dire hearing. The Judge questions 'Juror 50' regarding their lack of diligence in filling out a jury questionnaire; the juror admits to being 'distracted' and rushing ('float, fly through it') to finish. Prosecutor Ms. Moe confirms the government has no further questions at that stage.
| 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 of 'minors' in indictment
Argument regarding Count Five, specifically the definition of 'minors' versus specific ages (17 or 18) to avoid ambiguity during the 2001-2004 conspiracy period.
Conference Call
Court inquired why defense counsel was presenting two different versions of facts.
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.
July 21st letter
A letter submitted to the court.
Legal representation of facts
Comparison of facts in this letter versus a legal brief.
Unknown (Identified as Government Exhibit 28)
Letter at the Court identified as Government Exhibit 28.
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.
Disclosure of research/internal communications
A letter addressing the Court's question regarding information on Juror Number One, disclosing the firm's earlier research.
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