THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
This is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense (Mr. Rohrbach) argues that the recall of witness 'Jane' should be limited to a prior consistent statement. The prosecution (Ms. Menninger) argues that Jane's potential contact with her subpoenaed younger brother violates a sequestration order and should be open for questioning. The Court discusses a lack of a specific order prohibiting witnesses from speaking to each other and references a text message from June 15th.
DOJ-OGR-00018866.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense attorney (Ms. Menninger) and the prosecutor (Mr. Rohrbach) are discussing a potential witness named Brian before the Judge. The government has decided not to call Brian, and the defense is debating whether to call him despite having him under subpoena, due to concerns about his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister and the risk of opening the door to prior consistent statements.
DOJ-OGR-00018864.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves a procedural dispute between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the potential recalling of a witness named Jane and the subpoena status of a witness named Brian. The defense raises concerns about missing disclosures regarding conversations Jane had with her brother, questioning the truthfulness of the recounting of events.
DOJ-OGR-00018860.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, the judge admonishes the attorneys to provide a specific rule of evidence when making objections, rather than using one-word grounds, to prevent improper communication with the jury or witnesses. After confirming no further business is expected for the evening, the court is adjourned until 8:45 a.m. on December 8, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018859.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. An unidentified attorney argues for the record that certain materials are not privileged, citing three reasons: no communication was required, potential disclosure to the government would waive privilege, and the intent to communicate to a third party negates privilege from the start. The judge acknowledges the argument but states that the court had already sustained an objection based on privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00018857.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and the judge. The primary topic is the status of witnesses, with the government (represented by Ms. Moe) seeking confirmation that the defense will not recall a witness named Jane, following the completed testimony of Matt and the withdrawal of Brian. The defense (represented by Ms. Menninger) requests time to consider, and the judge instructs them to confer and address the issue the next day.
DOJ-OGR-00018856.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about scheduling a future court session, with the judge suggesting evening or weekend dates to avoid conflicting with the jury. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, also makes a formal request to the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to communicate about her testimony with another witness, who is Jane's younger sibling and is also under subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00018855.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the scheduling of a charging conference, potentially on December 16th or 18th. Ms. Moe indicates that the government anticipates resting its case by Thursday of that week, pending the cross-examination of remaining witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00018854.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe informs the court that the government anticipates resting its case 'this week.' The Judge grants a request to keep a document under seal to protect the identities of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms and discusses scheduling a charging conference, noting a conflict on the 13th, 14th, and 15th.
DOJ-OGR-00018853.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about witness scheduling. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, informs the court that an investigation could not be completed and they will not call a witness named Brian. In response to a request from defense counsel, the court directs that an updated witness list be provided that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00018852.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the recross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding a sum of $446,000 she received in 2009 and whether it was depleted by 2012. Following the questioning, the witness is excused, and the court adjourns for the day.
DOJ-OGR-00018849.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) covering the redirect examination of a witness named Carolyn. During this segment, defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca finishes his questioning regarding a photo exhibit (C10), after which prosecutor Ms. Comey questions Carolyn about the authorship of her civil complaint and her application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, to which Carolyn admits she did not write them herself. The page concludes with a question regarding an FBI interview report.
DOJ-OGR-00018848.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on the witness's claim that she previously saw a photograph of a nude and pregnant Ms. Maxwell in Epstein's house.
DOJ-OGR-00018847.jpg
This page is a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness named 'Carolyn' in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense attorney attempts to impeach the witness's credibility by suggesting she has an incentive to lie and questioning her about schizophrenia and alleged past loss of child custody due to substance abuse, which the witness repeatedly denies. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to the line of questioning regarding the witness's incentive to stick to her story.
DOJ-OGR-00018843.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines a witness named Carolyn regarding her application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund submitted on October 14, 2020. The questioning highlights that this submission occurred while she was meeting with the government and distinguishes this claim from her separate lawsuits against Epstein and Kellen.
DOJ-OGR-00018842.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness named Carolyn. The questioning centers on Carolyn's meetings with the government in 2020, which she attended with Mr. Scarola and other lawyers, and their potential connection to her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn consistently responds that she cannot recall the details of these meetings.
DOJ-OGR-00018841.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning, led by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, focuses on emails sent on Carolyn's behalf by her agent, Mr. Scarola, to the government in July 2020, prior to her interviews. The transcript captures objections from another attorney, Ms. Comey, and rulings from the judge regarding potentially privileged communications between the witness and her representative.
DOJ-OGR-00018840.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Carolyn in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Pagliuca questions the witness about the timing of her cooperation with the government, specifically attempting to link her first response in July 2020 to the opening of the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund in June 2020. The witness denies knowing about the fund opening date but confirms responding through her attorneys, Mr. Danchuk and Mr. Scarola.
DOJ-OGR-00018832.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness, Carolyn. Mr. Pagliuca reads from prior testimony, questioning Carolyn about whether she had sexual intercourse with a Mr. Epstein. The witness's read testimony denies any sexual intercourse, and the exchange is interrupted by an objection from another attorney, Ms. Comey, and a correction from the judge stating that Mr. Pagliuca misread the testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018831.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness named Carolyn. The questioning centers on a previous statement where the witness denied having sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. The witness clarifies her answer, stating she replied 'no' because she was not a willing participant and that he had intercourse with her, which she stopped.
DOJ-OGR-00018830.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The defense attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) questions the witness about her 2009 testimony regarding drug use (cocaine) at Jeffrey Epstein's house, specifically establishing that Epstein did not instruct her to use drugs. The questioning then pivots to her claim of having sexual intercourse with Epstein before being interrupted by an objection from Ms. Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00018828.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a trial. Attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey debate with the judge which portions of a prior testimony should be read to a witness to refresh their memory. The specific testimony in question involves the witness being asked about doing cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house.
DOJ-OGR-00018826.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Carolyn in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness about alleged cocaine use at Jeffrey Epstein's house, which she denies. The witness spontaneously interjects that Epstein told her not to take drugs, prompting an objection from Ms. Comey and an admonishment from the Court to wait for rulings on objections.
DOJ-OGR-00018824.jpg
This document is a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning centers on a deposition from October 21, 2009, which Carolyn denies ever having seen. During the exchange, Carolyn also states that she has never taken a hallucinogenic drug.
DOJ-OGR-00018823.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a prior deposition from 2009 and an incident involving the alleged ingestion of 'angel trumpets' (a flower) while visiting Jeffrey Epstein's house, which the witness denies ingesting. Ms. Comey objects to a line of questioning regarding prior testimony, which is sustained by 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 |
Evidentiary Objections
Discussion regarding inconsistencies in paragraphs 3 and 4; Court sustains objections.
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.
Disclosure of research/internal communications
A letter addressing the Court's question regarding information on Juror Number One, disclosing the firm's earlier research.
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.
Legal representation of facts
Comparison of facts in this letter versus a legal brief.
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.
July 21st letter
A letter submitted to the court.
Epstein's Compliance
Stating Epstein has already registered and recognizes the duty, but reserving right to appeal.
SORA Registration
Explaining that the offense is registrable in Florida and recognized by NY State Board of Examiners.
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