SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00013902.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony from a witness named Espinosa, filed on August 10, 2022. Espinosa describes the physical layout of an office on Madison Avenue, detailing the locations of the accounting and legal teams, a reception area, and specific offices for Jeffrey Epstein and his assistant. The witness also states that they shared an office with Ghislaine and a legal assistant named Lauren Quitner.
DOJ-OGR-00013901.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness identifies former colleagues, naming Leslie Roth and Suann Pisap as executive assistants, and Emmy Taylor and Sarah Kellen as personal assistants who were present in the office. The questioning specifically focuses on the witness's recollection of seeing Taylor and Kellen during the 1996-1998 time period.
DOJ-OGR-00013900.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The testimony focuses on identifying the staff employed at Jeffrey Epstein's office during the mid-to-late 1990s (1996-1998). The witness lists specific names and roles, including the legal team (Jeff Schantz, Darren Indyke, Amanda Milroy), the accounting team (Harry Beller, Eric Gany, Bella, Gee), receptionists (Michelle Healy, Helen Kim), and an executive assistant (Maureen).
DOJ-OGR-00013899.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. She testifies that during her six years of employment with Jeffrey Epstein's company, her primary workplace was an office at 457 Madison in Manhattan. She also states that she worked at Ghislaine Maxwell's residence for a total of about one to two weeks, but never worked at Jeffrey Epstein's residence in Manhattan.
DOJ-OGR-00013898.jpg
This document is a page from the direct examination transcript of Ms. Espinosa during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Espinosa testifies about maintaining contact with Maxwell after leaving her position as an assistant at 'Epstein & Co,' specifically exchanging holiday wishes and requesting professional references. The witness also confirms Maxwell's birth date (December 25, 1961) and positively identifies Maxwell in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00013897.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa describes their roughly six-year employment with Ghislaine at an office on 457 Madison Avenue. Espinosa expresses high regard for Ghislaine, stating they learned a lot from her, and describes her as a fair, nice, and demanding boss.
DOJ-OGR-00013895.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa describes a unique hiring process involving a preliminary interview with Ghislaine Maxwell conducted in the back of a limousine driving around Manhattan. Following this successful 'test,' Espinosa was permitted to meet with Jeffrey Epstein at his office for a final interview and subsequently received a job offer.
DOJ-OGR-00013894.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding dated August 10, 2022, where a witness named Espinosa describes the process of getting a job at Jeffrey Epstein's company. Espinosa explains that she found the job through a newspaper ad, contacted a job agency, and was subsequently interviewed by four people, including Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel, Jeff Schantz and Darren Indyke.
DOJ-OGR-00013891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the beginning of a trial session where the defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, calls his first witness, Cimberly Espinosa. The witness is sworn in, identifies herself for the record, and prepares to undergo direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013890.jpg
This document is a single page (page 31 of 246) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange between the Marshal, Attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and the Judge regarding the readiness for a female individual waiting outside and an order to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013889.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge (The Court) and two attorneys, Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell. The conversation focuses on whether to mark an exhibit for identification and clarifies that Mr. Everdell will be calling the first witness. The court then prepares to bring in the jury to proceed with the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00013888.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the use of electronic equipment to simulate a whiteboard for a jury demonstration because COVID protocols prevented the person ('she') from standing directly before the jury. The discussion centers on whether a picture of the digital drawing needs to be preserved for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00013887.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between several attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim) and the judge. The discussion covers procedural issues such as making photocopies, a request for a brief recess, and a request to use a screen for a potential witness, Dr. Loftus. The court resolves the copying issue and prepares to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013886.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and Government attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding trial logistics. Key topics include scheduling a charging conference for Saturday at 9 a.m. with public access, limiting testimony about a 'soap opera' by name, and the Defense's plan to show single copies of newly received photos to the jury by walking past the jury box.
DOJ-OGR-00013885.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) and Mr. Everdell (defense) before the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs intended to prove a 'continuing relationship' between a witness (pseudonym 'Jane') and the defendant. The Court rules to allow the evidence, citing that it is not prejudicial under Rule 403, while emphasizing the need to maintain the witness's anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00013884.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by context and LCGVMAX1 code). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that photographs sent by a witness ('Jane') to Ms. Espinosa, an employee who worked in Epstein's office daily, should be admitted as evidence to show 'Jane' maintained relationships with Epstein's circle after claiming to flee. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz counters that the evidence is irrelevant because the witness already acknowledged maintaining such relationships during direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013883.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about evidence. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, requests to admit photographs into evidence that were provided by Ms. Espinosa, a fan of a soap opera star named Jane who sent them to her. The government's attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, objects, stating that the government does not understand the relevance of these photographs to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00013882.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a pre-trial discussion. Defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, informs the court of an agreement with the government to limit the cross-examination of the first witness, Ms. Espinosa. The agreement specifically prevents the government from questioning Ms. Espinosa about a separate civil lawsuit where Ms. Galindo was a defendant in a case related to Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013881.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about allowing a witness to testify remotely via WebEx. Counsel argues the witness is unavailable due to a positive COVID test, referencing the case United States v. Al-Fawwaz. The court accepts the reason for unavailability and anticipates permitting the remote testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013880.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The transcript details a discussion between the Judge and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the admissibility of remote testimony for a witness who may have tested positive for COVID-19, referencing Ms. Sternheim's proffer and the standards of Rule 15. The government indicates it would not resist a finding of unavailability if a positive test is confirmed.
DOJ-OGR-00013879.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests that a male witness, who is quarantined with COVID-19, be allowed to testify via WebEx rather than traveling. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach insists that the witness must be subject to cross-examination (rejecting a stipulation) and demands proof of a positive COVID test.
DOJ-OGR-00013878.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a discussion during a hearing concerning the relevance of Dr. Loftus's opinions, Agent Young's testimony, and a motion to preclude Alexander Hamilton's testimony. The court also addresses a defense response regarding a witness and references a legal precedent from 'Hamilton in Federal '78'.
DOJ-OGR-00013877.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a judge's ruling. The judge denies the government's motion to preclude testimony from Dr. Loftus, an expert on 'suggestive activities,' on the condition that she testifies as a 'blind expert' without applying her opinions to the specific facts of the case. The judge finds that the defense has established a proper foundation for this testimony by cross-examining a witness, Jane, about the government's own potentially suggestive questioning tactics.
DOJ-OGR-00013876.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between counsel and the judge regarding the admissibility of testimony. The parties discuss potential testimony from Mr. Grumbridge concerning the prior ownership of a property called Stanhope Mews. The court then addresses a government motion to exclude parts of Dr. Loftus's anticipated expert testimony on suggestive interview techniques.
DOJ-OGR-00013875.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between a judge and attorneys about a proposed stipulation. The stipulation would establish the timing of ownership for a property at 44 Kinnerton, which would then be used to argue the credibility of testimonies from Ms. Maxwell and a witness named Kate regarding when Ms. Maxwell resided there.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity