SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00013298.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal debate regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 761, an application to the Professional Children's School for a minor referred to as 'Jane.' The prosecution and the Judge discuss whether the document is admissible as a business record, specifically noting that the application listed Jeffrey Epstein as a financial guarantor, which the Court deemed relevant to show the family's perception of Epstein's financial support.
DOJ-OGR-00013297.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between the defense (Sternheim) and prosecution (Rohrbach) regarding the admissibility of evidence (exhibits 823 and 824) and hearsay concerns. The prosecution mentions Ms. Gill, the head of HR for Mar-a-Lago, noting she has reviewed a specific employment file relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00013296.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the admissibility of information on an insurance form, specifically whether listing family members constitutes hearsay. The discussion references the 'Lieberman' case precedent regarding business records and verification procedures.
DOJ-OGR-00013295.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Rohrbach (Gov) and Sternheim (Defense) argue before the Judge regarding the admissibility of insurance forms and medical billing records related to Mar-a-Lago. The debate centers on whether a form filled out by 'Mr. Roberts' constitutes hearsay and if a witness, Ms. Gill, can testify to practices that occurred before her employment began.
DOJ-OGR-00013294.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) in the case USA v. Maxwell. The Court and attorneys discuss the admissibility of Mar-a-Lago personnel records (Exhibits 823 and 824) intended to prove that Virginia Roberts was the daughter and dependent of an employee, Mr. Roberts. The debate centers on whether the employee-filled forms constitute hearsay or admissible business records verified by the employer.
DOJ-OGR-00013293.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, Ms. Sternheim (Defense), and Mr. Rohrbach (Government) regarding the admissibility of evidence (exhibits 823 and 824, identified as insurance cards). The Judge cites *United States v. Lieberman* as relevant case law while the court waits for a delayed juror.
DOJ-OGR-00013292.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT), a government attorney (Mr. Rohrbach), and a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) regarding a minor issue with the fourth witness, identified as Mr. Rogers. The parties agree to resolve the issue during a break, and the court adjourns until the jury is present.
DOJ-OGR-00013291.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal debate over whether employee insurance records from Mar-a-Lago (Government Exhibit 824) can be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are kept for business purposes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain inadmissible hearsay. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before ruling on their admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00013290.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether an insurance form can be used as evidence. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that a form filled out by Mar-a-Lago employee Sky Roberts for Virginia Roberts is not a business record of Mar-a-Lago and cannot prove Virginia Roberts' employment there. The government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, contends the form is relevant because it shows Virginia Roberts was the dependent of a Mar-a-Lago employee, while the judge notes the records do not directly support claims of her employment.
DOJ-OGR-00013289.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a lawyer's argument for the admissibility of evidence in a sex trafficking case. The lawyer, Mr. Rohrbach, explains the relevance of a phone number for Sky Roberts (linked to Virginia Roberts's parents) and personnel records from Mar-a-Lago. He outlines the expected testimony of Ms. Gill, Mar-a-Lago's records custodian, to establish the documents as valid business records.
DOJ-OGR-00013288.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues for the relevance of documents, such as a birth certificate, to connect a Virginia Roberts (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual who was allegedly present at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 and who was the subject of testimony by Juan Alessi and Carolyn. Opposing counsel, Ms. Sternheim, objects on the grounds of relevance and foundation.
DOJ-OGR-00013285.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, where the Court discusses a proposed limiting instruction for the jury. The instruction clarifies that testimony from a witness about alleged sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein in New Mexico is not considered 'illegal sexual activity' as charged by the government in the indictment. The Court also references a prior November 23rd conference where the defense agreed with the instruction, and notes complications related to New Mexico law.
DOJ-OGR-00013280.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a dialogue between the judge, government counsel (Mr. Rohrbach), and defense counsel (Ms. Menninger). The discussion focuses on the defense's intentions regarding witnesses Jane and Brian, specifically whether Brian will be released from his subpoena and if Jane will be recalled. Ms. Menninger states Brian is already under subpoena, prompting the judge to recall her previous statement that she would not subpoena him.
DOJ-OGR-00013274.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about attorney-client privilege. An unnamed speaker outlines three reasons why certain materials should not be considered privileged, including that they were intended for a third party or would lose privilege if shown to the government. The judge acknowledges the argument but notes a prior ruling, after which counsel for the government (Ms. Moe) and other lawyers (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Pagliuca) indicate they have no further points on the matter at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00010264.jpg
This is page 49 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. The Judge sets a schedule for simultaneous briefing due on the 15th (limited to 15 pages) and rules on the docketing of materials. The Court explicitly orders that identifying information for 'Juror 50' be redacted from submitted questions before they are docketed, while stating a previous judicial opinion will be docketed without redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00010262.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, detailing the end of a witness's testimony and a subsequent procedural discussion. A witness denies that reading the case summary, which involves sexual crimes, made them reflect on their own past sexual abuse. After the witness is excused, the judge (THE COURT) discusses the schedule for post-trial briefings with the government's counsel, Ms. Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00010261.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a dialogue between the judge, Ms. Sternheim, and Ms. Pomerantz regarding an individual's understanding of the case based on a questionnaire they completed. The judge reads aloud a portion of the case summary from the questionnaire, which states the defendant is charged with conspiring with and aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel between 1994 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00010260.jpg
This document is page 45 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It details an inquiry by the Court into a witness or potential juror's interactions with reporters regarding their personal history of sexual abuse. Following the questioning, a sidebar conference occurs where defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests the Judge ask the individual about their knowledge of the case summary, noting the individual admitted to knowing the case was about sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010258.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on March 11, 2022. It details the questioning of a former juror regarding their post-trial social media activity, specifically a Twitter interaction with witness Annie Farmer where the juror thanked Farmer for sharing her story. The juror admits to being a victim of abuse and discusses their limited use of Twitter.
DOJ-OGR-00010257.jpg
This document is page 42 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records a questioning session, likely of a juror (Juror 50), regarding their decision to give press interviews about their status as a sexual abuse victim. The witness explains they did not believe their family or friends would find out because they didn't use their full name and assumed the story wouldn't be major news.
DOJ-OGR-00010256.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330. It features a colloquy between a judge ('your Honor') and a witness who served as a juror. The questioning focuses on whether the juror answered previous questions accurately, followed instructions, or was distracted by personal issues (specifically thoughts about an 'ex') during the trial or while filling out a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00010253.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on March 11, 2022. It captures a discussion between the court, Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell regarding a prior interview with an unnamed male subject. The conversation centers on clarifying what was said during that interview, particularly the subject's reaction to personal questions, and the court ultimately rules that the subject's motivation for speaking to the press after a trial is not relevant to the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00010251.jpg
This document is page 36 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. The text captures a legal argument regarding the cross-examination of a male witness who is a victim of sexual abuse. The defense (implied) questions the witness about an interview with a reporter named Lucia from The Independent and whether he understood the public consequences of that interview. Prosecutor Ms. Moe objects to the phrasing of the question regarding 'consequences' as confusing, while conceding no objection to limited follow-up on the witness's understanding of public exposure.
DOJ-OGR-00010250.jpg
This document is page 35 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues before the Court that a male subject (likely a juror or witness) lacks credibility because his statements about not expecting to be known contradict his lengthy discussions with a journalist named Lucia from The Independent about the consequences of coming forward. The defense contends the subject is 'talking out of both sides of his mouth' regarding his anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00010249.jpg
This document is page 34 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a male subject (likely a juror) gave inconsistent statements regarding his understanding of the publicity consequences of an interview with a journalist named Lucia, specifically in relation to answers provided on a jury questionnaire. Everdell highlights the contradiction of the subject claiming he did not expect to become known worldwide as a victim of sexual abuse while simultaneously speaking to journalists.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity