THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00000521.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, detailing a bail hearing. The prosecution, represented by Mr. Rossmiller, argues that the defendant should be detained, citing the defense's failure to provide detailed financial information and the legal presumption of detention for sex trafficking charges, which is strengthened by the defendant's prior sex offense conviction. The judge interacts with the prosecutor to clarify the government's burden of proof in the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00000500.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court order filed on July 18, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). The Court rules Epstein's proposed bail package inadequate, primarily because the defense failed to provide audited financial statements or an affidavit from Epstein, submitting only a 'cursory' summary claiming assets of $559,120,954. The judge criticizes the defense's claim that they could not produce accurate financials quickly, calling the excuse 'disingenuous' for someone of Epstein's wealth and financial experience.
DOJ-OGR-00000497.jpg
This document is a page from a government filing (July 18, 2019) arguing against bail for Jeffrey Epstein. It details his immense wealth, listing specific property values totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, and notes the discovery of over $70,000 in cash and loose diamonds in his safe, which the government argues indicates a flight risk. The document also asserts that Epstein previously used employees to facilitate the exploitation of minors in New York and Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000429.jpg
This court transcript, filed on July 16, 2019, documents a judge scheduling a continued detention hearing for a defendant, Mr. Epstein, on July 11. The court orders Mr. Epstein to remain detained and directs him and his counsel, Mr. Weingarten, to see Judge Berman in courtroom 17B immediately. The transcript also includes a clarification from Mr. Weingarten that there is no statutory rape charge due to a lack of penetration.
DOJ-OGR-00000428.jpg
A transcript page from a July 16, 2019 court hearing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Prosecutor Rossmiller argues that the previous non-prosecution agreement was limited to the Southern District of Florida and that current charges involve New York victims, distinct from previous conduct. The Judge interrupts to object to the minimization of 'statutory rape' with the word 'only'.
DOJ-OGR-00000427.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 16, 2019, regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten requests an adjournment of a detention hearing until Thursday, which the Court grants. Prosecutor Mr. Rossmiller accepts the delay but provides a rebuttal argument, asserting that federal law charges trafficking rather than 'child prostitution' because children cannot consent to sex, and noting that force is not required for underage victims.
DOJ-OGR-00000424.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on July 16, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten requests an adjournment of the detention hearing to the end of the week to prepare a written bail package, noting they had just met the client that day. The government attorney, Mr. Rossmiller, does not object, provided the defendant consents to detention in the interim under statute 3142(f).
DOJ-OGR-00000422.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) filed on July 16, 2019, concerning a bond hearing. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten argues that while there may have been prostitution, there was no violence, coercion, or trafficking involved. The Judge (The Court) counters this argument by noting that if the women involved were under 18, they were legally incapable of consent, making the acts rape.
DOJ-OGR-00000420.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) filed on July 16, 2019. Attorney Mr. Weingarten argues before the Court that the Florida nonprosecution agreement should stand, asserting that a plea deal cannot be undone simply because prosecutors failed to notify victims, provided the defendant fulfilled their obligations (prison time, restitution, registration). Weingarten emphasizes that voiding such deals would make it impossible for defense attorneys to negotiate future agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00000416.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 16, 2019, detailing a pretrial detention hearing. A government representative, Mr. Rossmiller, argues for the defendant's detention by describing evidence found at his home, including a massage room consistent with victim accounts and electronic disks labeled with incriminating titles. Mr. Rossmiller concludes that the defendant represents a continuing danger to the community and a flight risk, justifying detention pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00000410.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a detention hearing on July 16, 2019. The government's attorney, Mr. Rossmiller, argues that the defendant should be detained without bail pending trial, citing an extraordinary risk of flight and danger. The argument is based on serious charges, including a years-long scheme of trafficking and sexually abusing minors, and is supported by a recommendation for detention from Pretrial Services.
DOJ-OGR-00000409.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, detailing the arraignment of Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). During this proceeding, the Court reads the charges of sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking to Epstein. Represented by Mr. Weingarten, Epstein pleads 'Not guilty' to the charges, and the Court moves the proceedings toward the question of bail.
DOJ-OGR-00000408.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on July 16, 2019. It records the proceedings where the prosecutor, Mr. Rossmiller, confirms Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on July 6 at 5:30 p.m. The Court then proceeds to read Epstein his Miranda rights and explains his rights regarding bail and legal representation.
DOJ-OGR-00000403.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 16, 2019. In it, a judge grants a joint request from the prosecution and defense to adjourn proceedings and exclude the time until Monday, July 15th, from speedy trial calculations. The judge justifies the decision as necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to allow both sides adequate time to prepare, specifically mentioning a 'written bail submission'.
DOJ-OGR-00000400.jpg
This is page 14 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, in the case of USA v. Epstein. The judge asks the prosecution (Mr. Rossmiller) if other defendants are anticipated; Rossmiller replies that no superseding indictments are imminent but are possible. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten then argues against current obstruction allegations by citing historical negotiations from 2007-2008, where federal and defense lawyers settled on a state statute plea deal rather than federal charges.
DOJ-OGR-00000399.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on July 16, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. The discussion centers on pretrial matters for a Mr. Epstein, including clarification that he has one effective passport and a debate over whether a pretrial report indicates he refused to provide financial information or was simply incomplete. The judge also questions another attorney, Mr. Rossmiller, about allegations of witness tampering by Mr. Epstein, confirming these will be part of the government's bail submission.
DOJ-OGR-00000397.jpg
This is page 11 of a court transcript filed on July 16, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues to The Court that the discussion should concern the scope of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), not its legality. He references a filing by Northern District of Georgia prosecutors (acting for Southern District of Florida) before Judge Marrah that supported the NPA's constitutionality and asserted Epstein fulfilled his obligations.
DOJ-OGR-00000395.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein (SDNY). The prosecution argues that the Southern District of New York is not bound by the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg counters that the NPA provided Epstein with immunity for the conduct currently being prosecuted, including interstate travel and communications, and asserts that Epstein fulfilled the terms of that agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00000393.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (USA v. Epstein) filed on July 16, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten argues that discovery is needed to determine if Florida prosecutors violated the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by steering victims to New York. Prosecutor Mr. Rossmiller responds that the conduct is within the statute of limitations and denies allegations of a conspiracy within the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00000390.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, regarding the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The court discusses a search conducted at Epstein's East 71st Street residence over the previous weekend and questions the impact of discovered materials on his sex offender status. Prosecutor Rossmiller describes the materials as 'extremely concerning' regarding bail, while defense attorney Weingarten notes they have not yet seen the 'pictures' in question.
DOJ-OGR-00000389.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Epstein). The Judge questions prosecutor Mr. Rossmiller to ensure victims have been notified of the case. The discussion also covers Epstein's status as a Tier 3 sex offender in New York, originating from his 2008 Florida prosecution, classifying him as a high-risk individual for committing sex crimes with minors.
DOJ-OGR-00000378.jpg
This document is page 12 of a transcript from a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing filed on July 15, 2019. The dialogue involves a judge, prosecutor Ms. Gaffney, and defense attorney Ms. Musumeci discussing why Jeffrey Epstein must register as a sex offender in New York despite the specific acts (relations with a 17-year-old) not being registrable offenses under NY law; the requirement stems from reciprocity with his Florida offense. The Judge remarks that Epstein must register every 90 days or 'give up his New York home.'
DOJ-OGR-00000377.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing, filed as an exhibit in July 2019. The dialogue involves a prosecutor (Ms. Gaffney), a defense attorney (Ms. Musumeci), and the Judge discussing the age of a victim (disputed between 16 and 17) during her sexual relationship with the defendant. The defense argues that while the defendant pleaded guilty to 'under 18' in Florida, New York SORA laws require clear evidence of the victim being under 17 for registration as a sex offender.
DOJ-OGR-00000376.jpg
This document is a page from a transcript of a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing filed on July 15, 2019. Attorneys Musumeci and Gaffney explain to the Court the specifics of Jeffrey Epstein's previous Florida plea deal, clarifying that while the indictment was not registrable, he pleaded guilty to a second offense 'by information'—specifically 'procuring a person under 18 for prostitution'—which requires registration.
DOJ-OGR-00000375.jpg
This document is page 9 of a transcript from a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing filed on July 15, 2019. The defense argues that the original Florida prosecutor, Lanna Belohlavek, stated there were 'no real victims' and that the conduct was 'commercial' and voluntary, lacking force. Ms. Musumeci addresses the court regarding the Florida investigation's conclusion that the offense was non-registrable at the time, though the Judge counters that it is registrable in the current jurisdiction.
| 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