SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014783.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's ruling on sentencing guidelines. The judge addresses objections from the defense regarding the application of the 2003 versus 2004 guidelines and an objection from the government that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered victims. The judge explains the legal reasoning, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause and the precedent set in Peugh v. United States, to determine which guidelines are applicable.
DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 22, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the commentary on a sentencing guideline for 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal, choosing to rest on her previously filed written arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00014781.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the supervisory authority of Kellen, an employee, in relation to Maxwell, Epstein, and an unnamed defendant. It details arguments about whether Kellen's actions, such as making calls and scheduling massage appointments, constituted supervisory authority, and mentions testimony from pilots regarding Kellen's reporting structure. The discussion also touches upon a five-point enhancement for sex offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00014780.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, in the case of USA v. Maxwell. The defense argues against a 'leadership enhancement' for sentencing, claiming trial testimony proves Sarah Kellen was Jeffrey Epstein's assistant, not Ghislaine Maxwell's, citing witnesses Larry Visoski and Cimberly Espinosa. Prosecutor Ms. Moe rebuts by citing victim Carolyn's testimony that Maxwell was present at the Palm Beach residence even when Kellen took over scheduling massages.
DOJ-OGR-00014779.jpg
This document is page 32 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (filed Aug 22, 2022). The defense counsel argues against a sentencing enhancement for a leadership role by claiming Maxwell did not supervise Sarah Kellen. Instead, citing testimony from witnesses Carolyn and Juan Alessi, the defense asserts that Sarah Kellen replaced Maxwell in the specific task of scheduling massage appointments, with a clear break between their tenures in that role.
DOJ-OGR-00014778.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell held a leadership role ('lady of the house') over Sarah Kellen, citing flight records to prove they were close associates of Jeffrey Epstein simultaneously. The defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) disputes the government's legal interpretation regarding the supervision of criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00014777.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that Sarah Kellen was a 'criminal participant' subordinate to Maxwell in the conspiracy hierarchy, taking over tasks like scheduling victims so that Maxwell could move higher up in the leadership structure. The Judge questions the specific evidence proving Maxwell's supervision over Kellen.
DOJ-OGR-00014776.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court transcript from the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The discussion focuses on sentencing guidelines, specifically whether Maxwell acted as an 'organizer or leader' of criminal activity. The government attorney (Ms. Moe) argues that Maxwell held a supervisory role over Sarah Kellen, identifying Kellen as a 'criminally responsible participant' to justify the sentencing enhancement.
DOJ-OGR-00014775.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, capturing a legal argument about evidence. A defense attorney argues that a helicopter purchase and testimony from Larry Visoski about holding assets for Mr. Epstein are not proof of their client's continued involvement in a conspiracy. In response, prosecutor Ms. Moe contends that this financial evidence was specifically offered to prove the defendant remained a 'close associate' of Epstein for many years, contradicting the defense's claim that she had 'moved on'.
DOJ-OGR-00014774.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a legal argument by Mr. Everdell before a judge. Mr. Everdell contends that an 'unreliable message pad' is insufficient evidence to increase sentencing guidelines and argues that the 2003 guidelines should apply because the conspiracy in question ended in 2004. He also challenges a government claim that the defendant received $7 million into 2007, labeling it an 'extreme stretch'.
DOJ-OGR-00014772.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion about the date of a message relevant to a criminal case. An attorney, Ms. Moe, argues to the court that the message is from November 2004, citing surrounding dates in a message pad, the defendant's travel with Epstein at that time, and testimony from a victim named Carolyn as evidence of an ongoing conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00014771.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe argues that a conspiracy continued through 2004 and into 2005, citing as evidence a message from a person named Carolyn in November 2004 attempting to schedule an appointment at 'the house'. The judge questions whether this evidence constitutes post-conspiracy or post-indictment conduct rather than ongoing conspiratorial acts.
DOJ-OGR-00014769.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It captures a legal argument between the judge ('THE COURT') and a government attorney ('MS. MOE') about the end date of a criminal conspiracy. The judge challenges the government's use of evidence from late 2004 and 2005, arguing it constitutes inadmissible 'post conspiracy' evidence because the conspiracy was legally dependent on a person named Carolyn being under the age of 18.
DOJ-OGR-00014768.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 22, 2022. It details a discussion between a judge, government attorney Ms. Moe, and another attorney, Mr. Everdell, about whether a criminal offense continued into November and December of 2004. The determination is critical for deciding if the 2004 sentencing manual applies, with the government arguing it does based on the trial testimony of a crime victim.
DOJ-OGR-00014767.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court transcript (Document 779) filed on August 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text records a defense attorney arguing that determining when offense conduct ended is a matter for the jury, specifically to avoid Ex Post Facto violations regarding sentencing guidelines. The speaker cites the 'Tykarsky' opinion and distinguishes the current situation from 'Apprendi' case law.
DOJ-OGR-00014766.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and a defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, during a sentencing hearing. The judge summarizes the probation department's sentencing recommendation and invites Mr. Everdell to present his arguments. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should determine which version of the sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) applies, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause.
DOJ-OGR-00014763.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, dated August 22, 2022, in which a judge overrules several objections. The objections concern evidence from a 2005 search of Epstein's Palm Beach residence indicating additional minor victims, the defendant's responsibility for these victims, and the inclusion of a victim impact statement from a person named Kate. The judge confirms that with certain redactions, the defense no longer objects to Kate's statement.
DOJ-OGR-00014760.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 22, 2022. The judge is overruling objections made by the defendant regarding the credibility of a witness named Carolyn. The court accepts as fact that Carolyn was introduced to Epstein by Virginia at age 14, visited Epstein's Palm Beach residence over 100 times, and performed sexualized massages until 2001.
DOJ-OGR-00014759.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022, in which the judge overrules objections from the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The court finds by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant personally recruited Virginia (Giuffre) while she was a minor to provide sexualized massages to Epstein, was aware of the sexual nature of these acts, and used monetary incentives to encourage Virginia to recruit another minor, Carolyn. The judge cites testimony from witnesses Annie, Jane, Kate, and Mr. Alessi, as well as flight records.
DOJ-OGR-00014758.jpg
This page is a transcript from the sentencing phase of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 22, 2022. The judge rules on defense objections regarding the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) concerning three specific individuals: Jane, Kate, and Annie. The court affirms that testimony showed Maxwell facilitated sexual acts for Jane and recruited Kate for massages, but agrees to amend the record to state Kate was above the age of consent.
DOJ-OGR-00014757.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The Court makes findings on disputed issues, concluding that Virginia was paid to recruit girls just as Carolyn was. The Judge also overrules defense objections regarding the inclusion of an individual named 'Kate' and the characterization of the defendant 'grooming' a victim named 'Jane.'
DOJ-OGR-00014756.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 22, 2022. The judge overrules objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, regarding her role in isolating minor girls and participating in a recruitment scheme with Epstein. The ruling cites trial testimony from witnesses 'Annie' and 'Jane' and details the recruitment chain starting with the defendant recruiting 'Virginia', who then enlisted 'Carolyn', who recruited others.
DOJ-OGR-00014754.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's rulings on objections from an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge overrules objections concerning the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, citing evidence from the trial. This evidence includes testimony from Juan Alessi about Maxwell targeting a victim named Virginia at Mar-a-Lago, metadata linking Maxwell to a document via the username 'Ghislaine', and bank statements showing a $23 million transfer from Epstein to Maxwell during their conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00014753.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge, government counsel Ms. Moe, and defense counsel Mr. Everdell. The primary topic is the procedure for addressing the defense's factual objections to a presentence report (PSR). The judge indicates a readiness to review each objection individually to ensure the report's accuracy before sentencing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity