SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014812.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely a victim impact statement in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker, a victim, condemns Ghislaine's lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility for trafficking women and children to Jeffrey Epstein and others. The speaker argues that no personal hardship, such as a difficult childhood, can excuse the gravity of her crimes and believes her lack of remorse indicates she would commit them again.
DOJ-OGR-00014811.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding. The court confirms a previously established anonymity order for a witness using the pseudonym "Kate," specifically instructing sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness. Kate then begins her victim impact statement, expressing fear for her daughter's safety in the context of eroding women's rights and referencing a collective effort to bring a "common enemy" to justice.
DOJ-OGR-00014810.jpg
This page contains a transcript of a victim impact statement delivered during court proceedings (likely sentencing) for Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker, now a psychologist, describes the long-term professional and personal fear caused by Epstein and Maxwell's threats, and urges Judge Nathan to consider the systemic and ongoing suffering of the victims when determining Maxwell's sentence. The speaker criticizes Maxwell for failing to admit guilt or provide information after her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00014809.jpg
This document is a victim impact statement from the sister of a woman named Maria. The speaker details the profound and lasting trauma inflicted upon Maria, herself, and their entire family by Maxwell and Epstein, describing abuse, sexual assault, and threats. The statement highlights the ripple effects of this trauma and accuses Maxwell of lying and threatening them to shut down investigations when they attempted to speak out to the media.
DOJ-OGR-00014807.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on August 22, 2022, likely related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. A speaker, Ms. Moe, argues for a harsh sentence, after which a victim, Ms. Farmer, delivers a powerful statement detailing the long-term psychological trauma, including a profound loss of self-trust, resulting from the abuse she suffered from both Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014805.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed on August 22, 2022, likely from a prosecutor's statement during the sentencing of a defendant named Maxwell. The speaker argues that Maxwell was Jeffrey Epstein's 'right hand' and a willing 'partner in crime,' who took millions from him to fund a luxurious lifestyle while they molested children together. The statement highlights Maxwell's disturbing worldview, the lasting trauma inflicted on her victims, and her complete lack of remorse.
DOJ-OGR-00014804.jpg
This document is page 57 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing or trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text captures a prosecutor's argument detailing specific acts of abuse committed by Maxwell, including groping a 16-year-old at a ranch, teaching a 14-year-old sexual acts, and procuring girls for her 'boyfriend' (implied to be Jeffrey Epstein). The speaker emphasizes Maxwell's predatory nature, her indifference to the suffering of vulnerable girls from struggling families, and her active role in trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00014803.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing hearing transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, begins her argument for a significant prison sentence by recounting the abuse of victims Jane, Kate, Annie, Virginia, Carolyn, and Melissa starting in 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00014802.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge (The Court), Ms. Moe, and Ms. Sternheim regarding the order of statements for an upcoming session, specifically coordinating when victims and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, will speak. The court sets the order as government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, before taking a lunch recess until 1:00 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00014801.jpg
This court transcript page from August 22, 2022, captures a judge's statements during a sentencing hearing for Ms. Maxwell. The judge rejects Maxwell's claim of indigence, citing a previous declaration of $22 million in assets for a December 2020 bail application, and announces an intention to impose a fine. The judge also notes the government is not seeking restitution and calls for a 30-minute break before proceeding with sentencing calculations.
DOJ-OGR-00014800.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's decision to overrule an objection regarding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell's, financial assets. The judge asserts that an uncertain asset, along with a $10 million bequest from Epstein, must be considered when determining her ability to pay a fine, as she has failed to prove otherwise. The transcript highlights the court's view of Maxwell's finances as a 'moving target'.
DOJ-OGR-00014799.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a 'bequest' listed in the defendant's financial affidavit should not be considered an asset for the purpose of calculating fines because the source estate is in bankruptcy and paying out victims' claims, making the asset 'tenuous.' The Court questions the status of the bequest and asks Ms. Moe (likely the prosecution) for a response.
DOJ-OGR-00014798.jpg
This document is page 51 of a court transcript from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The text details a recruitment chain involving the defendant, Virginia [Giuffre], Carolyn, and Melissa, noting that Melissa's name appears in the defendant's 'little black book.' The court also discusses financial fines, specifically mentioning the defendant's objection to including a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein as part of her assets.
DOJ-OGR-00014797.jpg
This document is page 50 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically establishing an offense level of 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235 months. The defense preserves an objection regarding the inclusion of Virginia and Melissa as separate offense groups.
DOJ-OGR-00014796.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a legal proceeding filed on August 22, 2022. A judge details the calculation for a defendant's sentencing, arriving at a total offense level of 37, which corresponds to a prison sentence of 210-262 months and significant fines. A representative, Ms. Moe, raises a specific objection to the judge's calculation of offense levels under guideline 3D1.4.
DOJ-OGR-00014795.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 22, 2022, detailing the sentencing guideline calculations for a defendant (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell given the victim names and case context). The judge calculates offense levels based on five specific victim groups: Jane, Annie, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa. Enhancements are applied based on the victims' ages (specifically Jane and Carolyn being under 16), undue influence into commercial sex acts, and the defendant's supervisory role in the criminal activity.
DOJ-OGR-00014794.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 22, 2022, is a transcript of a judge's ruling regarding a sentencing calculation. The judge finds that two minor victims, Virginia Roberts and Melissa, were trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein and should be considered for sentencing purposes, even though they were not named in the indictment. Citing precedent from the Second Circuit, the judge overrules the defendant's objection and decides to treat the conduct against these two victims as additional counts of conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00014793.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript or ruling where a judge dismisses a defense argument. The judge affirms that an 'undue influence' enhancement applies to the defendant's sex trafficking conviction involving a victim named Carolyn. The judge cites Carolyn's financial vulnerability (drug addiction, newborn son) and the significant age gap with Epstein as clear evidence of undue influence, making the defense's argument 'meritless'.
DOJ-OGR-00014792.jpg
Page 45 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The judge is issuing a ruling regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically overruling the defendant's objection to an 'undue influence' enhancement. The judge argues that applying the enhancement does not constitute 'double counting' because it addresses the specific harm of using influence to coerce a commercial sex act, distinct from the base offense of the victim being a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00014791.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (filed August 22, 2022). The judge establishes factual findings for sentencing enhancements, noting that Maxwell partially owned the jet, directed pilots (Visoski, Alessi, Rodgers) to transport victims, and acted as 'Epstein's number one' by managing his households and staff. The text explicitly mentions Sarah Kellen as Maxwell's personal assistant and applies sentencing guidelines based on Maxwell's leadership role in the conspiracy between 1994 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00014790.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) discussing the legal definition of 'extensive' criminal activity for sentencing purposes. It details the hierarchy of the conspiracy, naming Epstein and the defendant as knowing participants, noting Sarah Kellen joined in 2002, and identifying Virginia and Carolyn as recruiters of minors starting in 2001. It also credits testimony from employee Juan Alessi regarding his unknowing facilitation of sexualized massages under the defendant's instructions and mentions pilots Visoski and Rodgers.
DOJ-OGR-00014788.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The judge is ruling on sentencing guideline objections, specifically rejecting the defendant's argument against an enhancement for sexual abuse of minors and moving to discuss an enhancement for her 'leadership role' in the criminal activity. The text references Congressional intent regarding the sentencing of sex offenders and the requirements for proving a defendant was an organizer or leader.
DOJ-OGR-00014787.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or ruling, filed on August 22, 2022. A judge is overruling an objection from the defense concerning a sentencing enhancement for a defendant convicted of a sex crime. The judge asserts that the clear text of the Sentencing Guidelines is unambiguous and binding, and cannot be overridden by background commentary from the Sentencing Commission or scattered legislative history, which the judge deems unreliable.
DOJ-OGR-00014785.jpg
This legal document excerpt discusses the evidence regarding whether Carolyn was sex trafficked after November 1, 2004, and before she turned 18 in early 2005. It details Carolyn's testimony about her contacts with Epstein, including visits to his house and phone calls in 2004, and his alleged comments about her age and friends, all within the context of a conspiracy to traffic her.
DOJ-OGR-00014784.jpg
This legal document is a transcript from a court proceeding, filed on August 22, 2022, discussing the sentencing of a defendant for a conspiracy of sexual abuse. The central issue is determining whether the 2003 or the harsher 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, which hinges on whether the crime continued past November 1, 2004. The government's argument relies on the testimony of a victim named Carolyn, whom the judge and jury found to be a credible witness.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity