SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00011556.jpg
This legal document is a transcript from a court proceeding concerning the sentencing of a defendant named Guerrero for a sex-trafficking conspiracy. The judge is determining whether the 2003 or the harsher 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, which hinges on whether the crime continued after November 1, 2004. This determination relies heavily on the testimony of a victim named Carolyn, whom the judge and jury found to be a credible witness.
DOJ-OGR-00011555.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 22, 2022. The Judge is issuing a ruling regarding objections to the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), specifically noting the defense's argument to use 2003 sentencing guidelines versus 2004 guidelines. The text explicitly mentions that the government's sole objection to the guideline calculation is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be formally considered victims.
DOJ-OGR-00011554.jpg
A page from a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that sentencing guidelines regarding 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' should not apply to his client, noting she has not been accused of a crime in over 18 years. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, declines to respond verbally, resting on previous written briefings.
DOJ-OGR-00011553.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, concerning Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text features arguments between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the prosecution regarding sentencing enhancements, specifically debating whether Maxwell exercised 'supervisory authority' over an employee named Kellen who scheduled massage appointments. The defense argues that Maxwell's presence in the house while Kellen worked does not constitute supervision, while the prosecution relies on pilot testimony to establish a chain of command.
DOJ-OGR-00011552.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, where attorneys debate whether Maxwell had a supervisory or leadership role over Sarah Kellen. One attorney argues against this, citing testimony from Larry Visoski and Cimberly Espinosa that Kellen was Epstein's assistant, not Maxwell's. In response, another attorney, Ms. Moe, references testimony from a witness named Carolyn who recalled Kellen scheduling massages while Maxwell was present at the Palm Beach residence, implying a connection.
DOJ-OGR-00011551.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker argues against the assertion that Ms. Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen. The speaker cites trial testimony from witnesses Carolyn and Juan Alessi to support the claim that Kellen replaced Maxwell in the role of scheduling massage appointments, indicating a 'clear break' and a replacement of duties rather than ongoing supervision.
DOJ-OGR-00011550.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing arguments in a criminal case. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, asserts that the defendant held a leadership role over Sarah Kellen, citing flight records showing they both traveled on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet during the same period. The defense, represented by Mr. Everdell, begins to challenge the prosecution's legal interpretation regarding the need to prove supervision of another criminal participant.
DOJ-OGR-00011549.jpg
This court transcript excerpt from July 22, 2022, details an argument by a prosecutor, Ms. Moe, to the Court. Ms. Moe is establishing that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, held a leadership and supervisory role over Sarah Kellen within a criminal conspiracy, positioning Maxwell higher in the scheme's hierarchy than Kellen, who was an assistant to both Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011548.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on July 22, 2022, detailing a legal argument between a government representative, Ms. Moe, and the Court. The discussion focuses on establishing the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, as an 'organizer or leader' for sentencing purposes by proving she exercised a supervisory role over at least one other criminally responsible participant. The government specifically identifies Sarah Kellen as the individual supervised by Ms. Maxwell, based on evidence from the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011547.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell sentencing) dated July 22, 2022. The defense argues that money transfers for a helicopter and Larry Visoski holding car assets for Epstein do not prove the defendant's continued involvement in the conspiracy. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the financial evidence was offered to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against a sentencing enhancement, disputing the reliability of a 'message pad' and arguing that the conspiracy effectively ended in 2004, meaning 2003 guidelines should apply. The defense also contests a government claim that the defendant received $7 million into the 2007 time period.
DOJ-OGR-00011545.jpg
This is page 26 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the conspiracy charge cannot extend to 2005 because the individual named Carolyn was no longer a minor at that time (her birthday being in early January). Everdell also challenges the reliability and admissibility of an undated 'message pad' used as evidence, arguing it cannot be properly authenticated or dated.
DOJ-OGR-00011544.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a discussion about the date of a specific message, believed to be from November 2004. An attorney, Ms. Moe, argues that surrounding dates on message pads, flight records, and the defendant's travel with Epstein during that time support this date. The testimony of a crime victim named Carolyn is also cited as evidence of an ongoing conspiracy, which the defendant has the burden to prove withdrawal from.
DOJ-OGR-00011543.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on July 22, 2022. It details a legal argument between Ms. Moe and the Court regarding the timeline of a conspiracy, specifically whether it extended into 2005. Ms. Moe cites 'message pads' and a specific November 2004 message from an individual named Carolyn contacting 'the house' for an appointment as evidence that the conspiracy was still live during that period.
DOJ-OGR-00011542.jpg
This court transcript excerpt details a legal argument between counsel (MS. MOE) and the judge (THE COURT) about the end date of a criminal conspiracy. MS. MOE argues the conspiracy continued through the end of 2004, citing testimony from a witness named Carolyn who stated she was continually at Epstein's house during 2004 and 2005. The Court questions this line of reasoning, suggesting the actions described may constitute 'non-conspiracy conduct'.
DOJ-OGR-00011541.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge (THE COURT) and a government attorney (MS. MOE). The discussion centers on the legal end date of a conspiracy, with the government arguing it extended through 2004 and into 2005. The judge expresses concern that the evidence cited by the government is 'post conspiracy' because it falls after the date in the indictment and, crucially, after a person named Carolyn turned 18, an event upon which the conspiracy's continuation was legally dependent.
DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, where an attorney argues a legal point to a judge. The attorney contends that determining the end date of an offense, which is critical for an Ex Post Facto Clause violation claim, is a factual question for the jury, not a Sixth Amendment issue for the judge as per the Apprendi line of cases. The attorney cites the 'Tykarsky' opinion as support and notes that the government has not responded to this specific argument.
DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court transcript from a sentencing hearing filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the 2003 sentencing guidelines should apply rather than the 2004 guidelines to avoid violating the Ex Post Facto Clause, noting that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 240 months despite a calculated range of 292-365 months.
DOJ-OGR-00011537.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court hearing on July 22, 2022, discussing factual objections and the calculation of sentencing guidelines. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe participate in the discussion, with the Court adopting PSR recitations and outlining the process for guideline calculation. The defense contends a guideline calculation of 51 to 63 months' imprisonment, while the government's contention is cut off.
DOJ-OGR-00011535.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. The judge is ruling on defense objections to the Presentence Investigation Report. The court overrules objections regarding findings that records from the 2005 Palm Beach search prove Epstein received sexualized massages from minors (2001-2004) and affirms the defendant's responsibility for victimizing additional minors. It also addresses the inclusion of a victim impact statement from a survivor named 'Kate'.
DOJ-OGR-00011534.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 22, 2022, details a judge's ruling on objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge overrules objections regarding characterizations of the offense and Maxwell's responsibility for sexualized massages, citing trial evidence that contradicts her claims. The ruling concludes that evidence established Ms. Maxwell's recruitment of a person named Virginia, which initiated a broader recruitment scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00011533.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, dated July 22, 2022, in which a judge is ruling on objections made by the defendant. The judge overrules objections to including testimony from a victim named Carolyn about a sexual assault by Epstein and information about perjury charges in a presentence report. The judge affirms the court's broad discretion in considering such information for sentencing and states a belief in the reliability of both Carolyn's testimony and the information underlying the perjury charges.
DOJ-OGR-00011532.jpg
This legal document is a transcript of a judge's ruling from a case filed on July 22, 2022. The judge overrules several objections from the defendant concerning the testimony of a witness named Carolyn, whom the judge finds credible. The testimony in question involves Carolyn's claims of being brought to Epstein's Palm Beach residence by Virginia at age 14, visiting over 100 times, and stopping the performance of 'sexualized massages' in 2001.
DOJ-OGR-00011531.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on July 22, 2022, involving the sentencing or factual findings regarding the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The judge overrules objections to Paragraph 55, stating the record supports that the defendant recruited a minor, Virginia, for sexualized massages with Epstein and was aware of the nature of the acts. The text also details that the defendant instructed Virginia to show another minor, Carolyn, 'what to do,' and that monetary incentives were used to encourage Virginia to recruit Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00011530.jpg
This page from a court transcript details a judge's rulings on objections to a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) in a criminal case. The judge overrules an objection regarding conduct involving an individual named Kate, deeming it relevant for sentencing, but agrees to modify paragraph 43 to reflect that Kate was above the age of consent. The transcript ends with the introduction of an objection regarding evidence of payment for an individual named Annie's trip to Thailand.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity