THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014774.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a legal argument by Mr. Everdell before a judge. Mr. Everdell contends that an 'unreliable message pad' is insufficient evidence to increase sentencing guidelines and argues that the 2003 guidelines should apply because the conspiracy in question ended in 2004. He also challenges a government claim that the defendant received $7 million into 2007, labeling it an 'extreme stretch'.
DOJ-OGR-00014772.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion about the date of a message relevant to a criminal case. An attorney, Ms. Moe, argues to the court that the message is from November 2004, citing surrounding dates in a message pad, the defendant's travel with Epstein at that time, and testimony from a victim named Carolyn as evidence of an ongoing conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00014771.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe argues that a conspiracy continued through 2004 and into 2005, citing as evidence a message from a person named Carolyn in November 2004 attempting to schedule an appointment at 'the house'. The judge questions whether this evidence constitutes post-conspiracy or post-indictment conduct rather than ongoing conspiratorial acts.
DOJ-OGR-00014768.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 22, 2022. It details a discussion between a judge, government attorney Ms. Moe, and another attorney, Mr. Everdell, about whether a criminal offense continued into November and December of 2004. The determination is critical for deciding if the 2004 sentencing manual applies, with the government arguing it does based on the trial testimony of a crime victim.
DOJ-OGR-00014757.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The Court makes findings on disputed issues, concluding that Virginia was paid to recruit girls just as Carolyn was. The Judge also overrules defense objections regarding the inclusion of an individual named 'Kate' and the characterization of the defendant 'grooming' a victim named 'Jane.'
DOJ-OGR-00014753.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge, government counsel Ms. Moe, and defense counsel Mr. Everdell. The primary topic is the procedure for addressing the defense's factual objections to a presentence report (PSR). The judge indicates a readiness to review each objection individually to ensure the report's accuracy before sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00014752.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a hearing. The judge confirms with the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, and her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, that they have reviewed and discussed the presentence report. The transcript also notes that another attorney, Mr. Everdell, will handle objections for the defense, and confirms with counsel Ms. Moe that a court order was posted online.
DOJ-OGR-00014751.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. In this excerpt, the judge confirms with counsels Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim that all submissions have been filed and received. The judge then specifically asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to confirm what has been done to notify crime victims under the Justice For All Act, to which Ms. Moe responds that six impacted individuals have been notified through their counsel about the sentencing and their right to be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00014750.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. The Court lists various documents reviewed for sentencing, including support letters for Maxwell, a forensic psychiatric evaluation, a letter from an MDC inmate regarding Maxwell's tutoring, and numerous victim impact statements from individuals including Annie Farmer, Virginia Giuffre, and Sarah Ransome. Counsel for both sides confirm the record of submissions before the court.
DOJ-OGR-00014749.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. It lists the legal counsel present for both the government (Moe, Pomerantz, Comey, Rohrbach) and the defense (Sternheim, Everdell), as well as the defendant herself. The judge acknowledges reviewing preparatory documents, including a probation report and defense memoranda, prior to the sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00008546.jpg
This document is a legal filing from December 18, 2021, containing introductory instructions from a court to a jury. The core message of 'Instruction No. 1: Role of the Court' is to establish the court's absolute authority on matters of law, directing the jury that they have a sworn duty to accept and apply the law exactly as the judge presents it, regardless of their own opinions or any conflicting legal arguments made by attorneys during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008530.jpg
This document contains Jury Instruction No. 55 from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The instruction advises the jury regarding 'Preparation of Witnesses,' clarifying that it is not improper for witnesses to meet with lawyers (Government, defense, or personal) prior to testifying to review subjects and exhibits. The judge instructs that while the jury may consider this preparation when evaluating credibility, the weight given to it is within their discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00008418.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 17, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion involves the admissibility of evidence regarding 'non-testifying alleged victims' and 'prior statements of Ms. Maxwell' (referred to as government 8). The government attorney, Ms. Moe, mentions producing a large volume of electronically-stored discovery to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008417.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It features a legal argument between Ms. Menninger (defense) and the Court regarding hearsay rules. Menninger argues that testimony stating other accusers did *not* mention Ms. Maxwell is not hearsay (as it is an absence of a statement) and should be admissible if the government introduces evidence suggesting other victims exist without calling them to the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00008416.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 17, 2021, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of evidence in a sex trafficking case. The prosecution argues that the defense cannot introduce potentially exculpatory hearsay statements through law enforcement agents and must call the original witnesses. Defense counsel, Ms. Menninger, counters that the absence of an implicating statement is not hearsay, a point which the judge appears to challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00008415.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It details a legal argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger, who asserts that if the government introduces evidence (such as message pads) relating to individuals other than the four primary accusers, the defense should be allowed to introduce statements from those individuals claiming Ms. Maxwell was not involved. Prosecutor Ms. Moe agrees to defer the issue until trial, provided the defense does not mention it in their opening statement.
DOJ-OGR-00008412.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 17, 2021, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge discusses procedural matters regarding background information for the jury and addresses 'No. 6, evidence that goes to consent issues.' Attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Christian Everdell (Defense) are present, and the court suggests deferring the consent argument to the discussion of the Rule 412 motion due to overlapping issues.
DOJ-OGR-00008411.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 17, 2021, in which the judge is speaking. The judge outlines the rules for cross-examination, stating that the defense will be permitted to question law enforcement about the thoroughness of their investigation and to impeach government witnesses. The judge notes that denying these lines of questioning to the defense, represented by Ms. Maxwell, would have implications under the confrontation clause.
DOJ-OGR-00008353.jpg
This document is the final page (43) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2021. The transcript records the adjournment of the proceedings, with the Judge instructing Ms. Comey (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) to confer regarding rebuttal witnesses and submit a letter by Saturday if there is disagreement. The court adjourns for the Thanksgiving holiday with plans to reconvene the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00008352.jpg
This court transcript from a pretrial conference on December 10, 2021, documents several procedural discussions. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, successfully requests a limited exclusion from Rule 615 to allow his witnesses (Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus) to review another witness's (Dr. Rocchio's) testimony. The court also establishes a deadline for the government to provide its witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00008351.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a legal argument about witness sequestration. The judge, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Comey discuss whether victim witnesses who have already testified should be excluded from hearing other testimony, as they might be recalled for rebuttal. Ms. Comey requests to submit a letter to the court to further address the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00008348.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a court proceeding dated December 10, 2021, discussing jury instructions related to New Mexico law concerning illegal sexual activity. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach deliberate on how to present evidence and frame the charges for the jury, with the Court indicating it will refine the instructions for clarity. The discussion highlights the legal interpretation of 'force or coercion' in the context of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00008347.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, detailing a legal discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The conversation centers on the admissibility and relevance of evidence concerning sexual conduct in New Mexico to a federal conspiracy charge under the Mann Act, particularly in relation to New York's age of consent laws. The judge acknowledges the complexity and indicates the need for a legally correct jury charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008345.jpg
This court transcript from December 10, 2021, details a discussion between attorney Mr. Rohrbach and the judge regarding the legal framework of the case. They clarify that the charges are based on New York statutes, not New Mexico law, despite alleged sexual conduct occurring in New Mexico. The judge reiterates a prior instruction, explaining that because the witness was over the age of consent in New Mexico at the time, the conduct there was not illegal under local law, a point relevant for jury instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00008344.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge regarding jury instructions for an enticement charge. The core issue is whether the legality of sexual activity under New Mexico law is relevant or potentially prejudicial for a charge based on violating New York law, with the judge expressing concern about confusing the jury.
| 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 |
Unknown question regarding instructions
Jury sent a note; Judge is responding by referring them to instruction number 21.
Response to Note
So I received your note. I refer you to instruction number 21 on page 28. Please consider the entirety of the instruction.
Impartiality
Asked if he had any doubt about ability to be fair; Juror 50 said 'no'.
Clarification on charges
Indicated confusion regarding Count Four and jurisdiction.
Supplemental Instruction for Count Four
Proposed language clarifying that intent must relate to activity within New York state.
Dkt. No. 270
States that MDC staff conduct flashlight checks of all inmates as a matter of course.
Dkt. No. 191
Regarding the subpoena served on BSF.
Question regarding liability and facts
A note posing a question that led to debate over accomplice liability and flight arrangements.
Jury Instructions
Requesting instruction on 'purpose of travel' and arguing lack of evidence for return flight arrangement.
Jury Selection / Voir Dire
The Court questions a juror about their exposure to case information, availability for a six-week trial starting Nov 29, and familiarity with lists of names and entities involved in the case.
Juror Screening
Document Juror 50 is seeking a copy of.
Jury Note
A note signed by the foreperson that attorneys are discussing; requires redaction of signature.
Dkt. No. 46
Publicly available letter discussing the issue.
Regarding subpoena
Referenced as Dkt. No. 191, mentioning the request for a victim's diary.
Jury Selection
False denials regarding victim status and social media usage.
Motion to Unseal
A 3.5 page motion to unseal grand jury materials filed without supporting docs.
Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. / Maxwell Br.
Arguments regarding Juror 50's bias.
Format inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
Missing Jurors
Asking if the Court has attempted to call the missing jurors.
Argument on the merits of Juror 50's motion to intervene
Previews argument regarding Juror 50's motion, claiming it is a discovery request.
Initial Bail Hearing
Proffer that testimony would be corroborated by 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence'.
Request for Evidence
"We would like the FBI deposition 3505-005 referred to by the defense during the cross-examination of Carolyn."
Juror Screening
Written questionnaire and in-person questioning.
Sentencing Guidelines / Supervisory Role
Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence proves Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, satisfying the requirement for an organizer/leader enhancement.
Jury Questionnaire
Documents containing answers regarding prior experience with sexual assault.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity