courthouse
LocationRelationship Network
EFTA00028438.pdf
This document contains an email chain between attorney Gloria Allred and a redacted government official (likely from the SDNY prosecutor's office) dated July 29-30, 2019. The correspondence concerns logistics for an upcoming status conference in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal case scheduled for July 31, 2019, at 11:00 AM. Key topics include whether Epstein will attend (confirmed yes), a request by Allred for reserved seating (denied due to court security), and scheduling a meeting between Allred, her client, and the officials.
EFTA00028292.pdf
This document contains an internal email thread from July 2019 discussing security concerns for Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) involved in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The email was prompted by a Dataminr alert highlighting a tweet by reporter Shimon Prokupecz, which revealed that the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey was part of the prosecution team. The document also includes a timeline of Epstein's arrest in Teterboro, NJ, and pending charges in New York.
EFTA00027591.pdf
This document is a transcript of the plea conference held on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, for the case of State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein pleads guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. The transcript details the terms of the plea agreement, which includes an 18-month jail sentence (12 months on one count, 6 consecutive on the other) followed by community control, sex offender registration, and a non-prosecution agreement with federal authorities.
EFTA00021398.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 29, 2019, discussing logistics for an upcoming status conference in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal case scheduled for July 31, 2019, in New York. The correspondence involves unidentified attorneys discussing seating arrangements at the courthouse, with one party explaining they cannot reserve seats due to court security protocols. The emails also confirm that criminal defendants are typically present at such conferences and discuss changing a separate meeting location from a hotel to an office near the courthouse.
EFTA00015753.pdf
This document contains a chain of email correspondence between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Menninger, Everdell) and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding the logistics of reviewing evidence for case 20 Cr. 330. The discussions focus on scheduling physical evidence reviews at an FBI warehouse in the Bronx and electronic evidence reviews at the 500 Pearl Street courthouse. Key evidence items discussed include massage tables, plaster busts, cash, shredded paper, and thousands of 'highly confidential' nude or partially nude images seized from Jeffrey Epstein's devices and residences.
EFTA00014530.pdf
This document is a series of emails from July 29-30, 2019, between attorneys coordinating a meeting in New York. The meeting is scheduled to coincide with a status conference for Jeffrey Epstein's criminal case on Wednesday, July 31, 2019. One attorney, representing victims, asks if Epstein will be present in court and requests a seat be saved, which the recipient declines due to court security rules. Crucially, the victim's attorney mentions they will be discussing a 'third victim' they represent who wishes to meet in August.
EFTA00014100.pdf
This document is an email thread from June 2008 between Assistant U.S. Attorneys and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Jack Goldberger and Roy Black). The correspondence concerns the finalization of Epstein's plea agreement, specifically clarifying language about his 'imprisonment' versus 'community control' and confirming where he would serve his time (PBC Detention Center/Jail vs. Stockade). The emails reveal that prosecutors were working with '5 girls' for a Grand Jury, that there was surprise regarding a lack of press coverage, and that law enforcement officials ('The Chief') were contacting victims regarding the upcoming plea hearing.
EFTA00013533.pdf
This document contains a letter from attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez to the US Attorney's Office (Southern District of Florida) dated December 7, 2007. It attaches Jeffrey Epstein's signed Affirmation of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and a Notice of Hearing for a plea conference scheduled for January 4, 2008. Notably, Sanchez explicitly requests that the US Attorney's Office delay sending any victim notification letters until further discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00030311.tif
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript for a plea conference involving Jeffrey Epstein as the defendant in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida. The conference took place on June 30, 2008, at 8:40 a.m. at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, with JI Goldberger appearing on behalf of the defendant, and Phyllis A. Dames serving as the Official Court Reporter.
DOJ-OGR-00030268.tif
This document is a court record from a plea conference for Jeffrey Epstein in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. The conference took place on June 30, 2008, at 8:40 a.m. at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, with Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo presiding. Attorneys Barry E. Krischer and Lanna Belohlavek represented the State, while Jack Goldberger from Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. represented the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023203.tif
This document is an excerpt from an OPR report analyzing the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña during the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for Epstein's prosecution and victims' interests, despite a public narrative suggesting collusion with defense counsel. The report details Villafaña's efforts to protect victims' anonymity, expand the case scope, and draft victim notification letters, while refuting claims that she was 'soft on Epstein' based on witness statements and email context.
DOJ-OGR-00023253.tif
This document details events from December 2007 concerning victim notification letters related to Jeffrey Epstein's case. Villafaña prepared letters for victims but was instructed by Sloman to hold them after the USAO, via Sanchez, requested a delay due to Epstein's upcoming plea hearing and concerns about potential impeachment of victims for monetary compensation. The document also highlights an FBI agent's concern about unnotified victims and the defense's involvement in drafting letters, as well as Villafaña's later contact with an attorney representing a victim known as Jane Doe #2.
DOJ-OGR-00018233.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on the logistics of presenting evidence, including whether to provide a paper binder to the court and how a video will be displayed in the main courtroom but not in an overflow room. The judge gives instructions to ensure the public can view exhibits after the video is shown.
DOJ-OGR-00018120.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Ms. Comey, informs the judge that the witness order for the day has been changed due to travel issues, with the new sequence being Parkinson, Dawson, Maguire, Meder, and Flatley. The parties also discuss that witness Shelling's testimony has been stipulated to and that witness Maguire will likely testify after lunch.
DOJ-OGR-00008621.jpg
This document is a page of jury instructions from a legal case, filed on December 18, 2021. A judge is instructing the jury on the procedures for reaching and reporting a verdict, emphasizing that it must be unanimous and that deliberations must be kept confidential. The judge also reminds the jurors to be courteous to one another and announces a brief sidebar conference with counsel before the case is formally submitted to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008599.jpg
This document is Jury Instruction No. 42, titled "Direct and Circumstantial Evidence," filed on December 18, 2021. It explains the two types of evidence, providing a hypothetical example to illustrate circumstantial evidence. The instruction emphasizes that both direct and circumstantial evidence hold equal value, and the jury must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on all evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00008536.jpg
This document page contains the final jury instructions from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on December 17, 2021. The judge instructs the jury that their verdict must be unanimous, explains the role of the foreperson in filling out the verdict form and notifying the marshal, and urges courtesy during deliberations. The transcript concludes with the judge pausing proceedings for a brief sidebar conference with counsel and the court reporter before officially submitting the case to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008515.jpg
This document is page 59 of 82 from a court filing dated December 17, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains Jury Instruction No. 42, which explains the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence using an analogy about rain and umbrellas. The instruction concludes by reminding the jury that they must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting her.
DOJ-OGR-00008441.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines a joint proposal from the prosecution and defense regarding the presentation of closing arguments. The parties argue that alternatives like toggling monitors or using printed binders for the jury are unworkable due to potential interruptions, logistical difficulties, and the risk of inadvertently exposing sealed material, which would violate the privacy of victims and third parties. They propose instead to provide redacted copies of their presentation slides to the public on the following day.
DOJ-OGR-00001886.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 10, 2020. The judge justifies holding the proceeding with COVID-19 safety restrictions, citing a national emergency and public safety, before turning to the arraignment on an S1 superseding indictment. The judge then begins to question counsel, Ms. Moe, about the specifics of this new indictment compared to the original.
DOJ-OGR-00001562.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 9, 2020, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The order establishes procedures for court proceedings amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting seating to approximately 60 people on a first-come, first-served basis and outlining how counsel and the press can make seating requests. The document strictly prohibits any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of the proceedings, warning that violations may result in fines, sanctions, or denial of entry to future hearings.
DOJ-OGR-00001013.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, where the judge justifies holding the proceeding with COVID-19 safety measures, referencing a national emergency and ensuring public trial rights are upheld. The judge then transitions to the arraignment, confirming with counsel Ms. Moe that it is for an S1 superseding indictment and asking for an explanation of the changes from the original indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00020960.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes the testimony of a prospective juror, Juror 50. It argues that the juror was distracted by a recent romantic breakup and the busy environment of the courthouse, which affected his focus while completing the jury questionnaire. The document asserts that the juror's personal history of sexual abuse was not a primary consideration for him at the time, and that he did not believe he would be selected for the jury anyway.
DOJ-OGR-00020895.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding on February 28, 2023, where an individual identified as M38TMAX1 is questioned about their answers on a questionnaire. The questioning focuses on why they answered 'no' to a question about sexual abuse involving a family member, despite a past incident. The individual explains they did not consider the perpetrator to be family and that they were very distracted by a chaotic environment at the courthouse when completing the form.
DOJ-OGR-00020685.jpg
This document is a docket report from the SDNY for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated November 8-9, 2021. It details several filings, including the Government's opposition to bail reconsideration, a motion to preclude expert testimony from Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus, and letters regarding legal mail. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued orders scheduling a conference for November 10, 2021, denying the renewed request for bail, and establishing protocols for the defendant's transport and access to legal counsel.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity