DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021635.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed June 2023, Case 22-1426) arguing for strict punishment for Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details her predatory behavior, specifically highlighting her role in grooming a 14-year-old victim named 'Jane' through shopping and movies before normalizing sexual abuse. It describes specific sexual acts involving Epstein and Maxwell, including Maxwell instructing the child on how to touch Epstein's penis and Maxwell touching the victim's breasts.
DOJ-OGR-00021631.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (SA-455), likely from Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing hearing, filed as part of an appeal in June 2023. The speaker (Maxwell) addresses the court and the victims, stating that Jeffrey Epstein should have been the one facing justice for his crimes in 2005, 2009, and 2019. She apologizes to the victims for their pain and expresses hope that her conviction and 'harsh and unusual incarceration' will provide them with closure and peace.
DOJ-OGR-00021626.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) involving the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's requested sentence is excessive and notes that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 20 years. Sternheim compares Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that Epstein was 'far more culpable' yet would have faced the same sentencing guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00021624.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) featuring a victim impact statement by Ms. Stein against Ghislaine Maxwell. Stein describes the trauma she endured and calls for Maxwell's imprisonment so victims can be free. Following her statement, attorney Ms. Sternheim requests permission from the judge to address the victims directly.
DOJ-OGR-00021617.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a victim impact statement or court transcript (Case 22-1426) filed on 06/29/2023. An unnamed survivor describes the long-term psychological effects of their abuse, including isolation, alcoholism, and two suicide attempts. The speaker discusses attending Ghislaine Maxwell's trial in New York, finding solidarity with other testifying victims, and condemns Maxwell as a 'five-star general' of a massive sex-trafficking conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00021607.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely the Maxwell appeal) containing a victim impact statement or testimony. The speaker describes the trauma inflicted on herself and her sister, Maria, by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The text details how Maxwell used Maria to get to the speaker, the subsequent abuse, threats, and the sisters' attempt to speak out to the media which resulted in further threats from Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00021606.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) featuring testimony from Ms. Farmer (likely Annie or Maria Farmer). She describes the psychological impact of the abuse, including the grooming process that led to self-doubt, survivor guilt, and the realization that her sister and many other women were also exploited by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The court briefly interrupts to ask her to slow down her speech.
DOJ-OGR-00021605.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 60) of a sentencing hearing, likely for Ghislaine Maxwell. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues for a harsh sentence to demonstrate that wealth does not place one above the law. Subsequently, a victim named Ms. Farmer begins her impact statement, describing the psychological trauma and loss of self-trust resulting from abuse committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021601.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing hearing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, is delivering an opening argument requesting an 'above-guideline sentence of multiple decades in prison,' citing the exploitation of victims Jane, Kate, Annie, Virginia, Carolyn, and Melissa. Specifically, it notes that Maxwell met Jane at a summer camp in August 1994 when Jane was 14 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00021599.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the sentencing hearing) for Ms. Maxwell. The judge rejects the defense's claim that Maxwell is indigent, citing her previous report of $22 million in assets and a lack of documentation regarding her marriage or divorce settlement, and states an intention to impose a fine. The judge also notes that the government is not seeking restitution and prepares to discuss sentencing guidelines after a lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00021598.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (related to Case 22-1426) involving the sentencing or fining of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of specific assets in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), specifically citing a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge notes that despite Maxwell's claim of inability to pay, she had significant assets, including $3.8 million reported in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00021594.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing the sentencing calculations for a defendant involved in 'prohibited sexual conduct.' The judge calculates a guideline imprisonment range of 210 to 262 months and fines between $20,000 and $200,000 per count. Attorney Ms. Moe interrupts to correct a technical calculation regarding unit analysis under guideline 3D1.4.
DOJ-OGR-00021586.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely United States v. Maxwell) regarding sentencing. The judge is ruling on the application of sentencing guidelines, specifically rejecting the defendant's argument against enhancement 4B1.5(b) regarding public danger. The text also introduces enhancement 3B1.1(a), discussing the defendant's 'leadership role' as an 'organizer or leader' in criminal activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021580.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing an argument by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sentencing guidelines. Everdell argues that background commentary from the Sentencing Commission should be considered authoritative, specifically arguing that his client does not fit the definition of a 'dangerous sex offender' because they have not re-offended in over 18 years. Prosecutor Ms. Moe declines to respond verbally, resting on the government's written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00021575.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, likely from an appeal hearing (Case 22-1426). The discussion involves an attorney, Ms. Moe, arguing to the Court that Ghislaine Maxwell held a leadership role over Sarah Kellen within the criminal conspiracy. The argument posits that as the scheme evolved, Kellen was brought in as a subordinate to handle tasks previously performed by Maxwell (such as scheduling massage appointments), thereby elevating Maxwell's status in the hierarchy.
DOJ-OGR-00021568.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) featuring a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the Court regarding the timeline of a conspiracy. Ms. Moe argues that the conspiracy was active throughout 2004 and 2005, citing testimony from a witness named Carolyn who visited Epstein's house continually during that period at ages 17 and 18. The discussion focuses on the legal burden of proof regarding withdrawal from a conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00021557.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023, in which a judge is ruling on objections to a report (likely a Presentence Investigation Report). The judge overrules the defendant's objections, citing credible testimony from witnesses Annie, Jane, Kate, and Mr. Alessi to establish that the defendant personally recruited Virginia (a minor) for sexualized massages with Epstein. The ruling also affirms that the defendant used monetary incentives to have Virginia recruit 14-year-old Carolyn, who subsequently witnessed sexual acts at Epstein's residence.
DOJ-OGR-00021556.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing a judge's rulings on objections to a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) regarding a defendant (likely Ghislaine Maxwell). The text discusses the defendant's role in grooming victims 'Jane' and 'Kate' for Jeffrey Epstein, specifically overruling an objection to exclude Kate's testimony about the defendant's recruitment methods. It also addresses a dispute regarding evidence of Epstein paying for a trip to Thailand for an individual named 'Annie'.
DOJ-OGR-00021551.jpg
This document is page 6 (labeled SA-375) of a court transcript from a sentencing hearing (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's given the attorneys involved). The Judge ('The Court') is addressing the 'factual accuracy' of the presentence report (PSR). Ms. Moe, representing the government, states they have no further objections, while Mr. Everdell, representing the defense, questions the procedure for addressing their 'substantial factual objections' and whether every discrepancy needs to be resolved.
DOJ-OGR-00021544.jpg
This document is a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell), ordering a public hearing to address potential juror misconduct. The court orders Juror 50 to appear on March 8, 2022, to testify under oath regarding answers given to Questions 25 and 48 on the jury questionnaire. The Judge also rules that Juror 50's privacy interests are outweighed by the presumption of public access given his public comments.
DOJ-OGR-00021543.jpg
This document is Page 19 of a court ruling filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's request for pre-hearing discovery, labeling it a 'fishing expedition,' and rules that Juror 50 will be provided a copy of his completed jury questionnaire. The Court also orders that the questionnaire be docketed (unsealed), citing the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
DOJ-OGR-00021522.jpg
This is a placeholder page from a legal document, marked as "Page Intentionally Left Blank". It contains metadata for two court cases: Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, where it is page 346 of Document 204-3, filed on 04/16/21; and Case 22-1426, where it is page 92 of Document 78, dated 06/29/2023. The page has a Bates number of DOJ-OGR-00021522.
DOJ-OGR-00021510.jpg
This document is page 6 of 7 of a legal agreement (likely the Non-Prosecution Agreement) between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States. In this section, Epstein acknowledges that breaching the agreement allows the US to prosecute him for federal offenses. He explicitly waives his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial regarding any delays caused by this agreement and waives his Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury, consenting instead to be charged via Information.
DOJ-OGR-00021503.jpg
This document is Exhibit 3, a Non-Prosecution Agreement dated September 24, 2007. It is referenced as Document 78 in Case 22-1426, filed on June 29, 2023, and as Document 204-3 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 16, 2021, bearing a DOJ-OGR identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00021500.jpg
This page is part of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (R. Alexander Acosta). It outlines that federal prosecution is deferred provided Epstein pleads guilty to specific Florida state charges regarding minors and serves at least two years in prison. The document details the specific statutes violated, including lewd and lascivious battery on a child and solicitation of minors.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity