SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00000553.jpg
This document is page 43 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues that his client has meticulously complied with sex offender registration requirements for nine years, informing authorities in the Virgin Islands of travel to Paris, Florida, and New York. The Judge (The Court) questions Weinberg about the specific criteria for reporting presence (the 10-day rule) and questions the registration requirements in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00000552.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. In it, the judge (THE COURT) raises a concern based on a New York Post article suggesting Mr. Epstein was not in compliance with his sex offender registration obligations in New York. A speaker, Mr. Weinberg, responds that while he is aware of the story, Mr. Epstein has never been officially informed of any violation by New York authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00000551.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. In it, a lawyer named Mr. Weinberg argues that his client, a tier 3 registrant, has a long history of compliance with daily monitoring and has been careful to avoid any violations. Mr. Weinberg explains that his client was advised he did not need to physically appear in New York and details how his client's travel, monitored from the Virgin Islands, is carefully reported.
DOJ-OGR-00000550.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 24, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The speaker (likely the presiding judge) reinforces the presumption of Epstein's innocence during bail discussions. The speaker also quotes a previous statement by Judge Pickholz, who expressed surprise at the prosecutor's office's actions regarding Epstein's sex offender classification, specifically debating the reduction from Level 3 to Level 1.
DOJ-OGR-00000549.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, in which a speaker, Mr. Weinberg, discusses the legal history of his client, Mr. Epstein's, sex offender classification. Weinberg argues that Epstein has complied with all registration requirements, noting his principal residence is the Virgin Islands where he is a tier 1 offender, and that an attempt to register in New Mexico was deemed unnecessary by that state.
DOJ-OGR-00000548.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 24, 2019, in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The presiding judge discusses a previous SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing where Judge Pickholz was reportedly 'taken aback' because the defense (Kirkland & Ellis) and the prosecution (ADA from Vance's office) unusually joined together to argue for lowering the defendant's sex offender classification from level 3 to level 1, contrary to the state board's recommendation.
DOJ-OGR-00000547.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney argues that their client, Mr. Epstein, is not a flight risk. The attorney cites past actions as evidence, including not fleeing before his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), hiring lawyers, and serving time in county jail, from which he was released in 2010. The document also mentions a past legal dispute in New York regarding Mr. Epstein's classification.
DOJ-OGR-00000546.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, where attorney Mr. Weinberg is defending his client, Mr. Epstein. Weinberg argues that Epstein is not an out-of-control offender or a flight risk, citing previous intensive investigations by state and federal authorities in 2005 and 2006 and the high level of publicity as reasons why any misconduct would already be known. The judge questions the basis of Weinberg's claims about his client's character.
DOJ-OGR-00000545.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A speaker, Mr. Weinberg, argues to the court that the immense publicity surrounding Mr. Epstein, combined with his wealth, makes him an attractive target for both civil and criminal complaints. Weinberg contends that this unprecedented level of attention would motivate any individuals victimized by Epstein after 2005 to come forward.
DOJ-OGR-00000544.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, in which an unidentified speaker discusses the complexities of recidivism. The speaker argues that recidivism is a psychological issue and that rates can increase over longer periods (up to 15 years), challenging the idea that risk diminishes over time. The speaker also highlights that sex crimes are particularly difficult to evaluate for recidivism because victims frequently do not report the crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00000543.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, capturing a discussion between a speaker, Mr. Weinberg, and the Court. Mr. Weinberg argues that a defendant's 14 years of self-discipline should be considered evidence against future risk, questioning the government's ability to prove otherwise. The Court expresses significant interest in this argument, referencing government-supported studies on long-term recidivism among sex offenders that it has reviewed.
DOJ-OGR-00000542.jpg
Transcript from a July 24, 2019 court hearing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) where Epstein's defense argues for his release. The defense claims Epstein 'disciplined himself' and cites a 14-year gap in allegations (referencing 2002 and 2005) as proof he is no longer a danger. The Judge ('The Court') challenges this position, quoting the defense's previous letter which stated any danger had 'abated' or 'evaporated.'
DOJ-OGR-00000541.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in which an attorney, Mr. Weinberg, argues against the detention of his client, Mr. Epstein. Weinberg contends that after he rebuts the presumption of danger, the burden of proof falls on the government, and he asserts that the government has found no allegations of illegal sexual activity by Epstein since 2005, despite a lengthy investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00000540.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Mr. Weinberg, and the presiding judge. Mr. Weinberg argues that his client's case is not a typical trafficking case and that the legal presumption for detention is rebuttable. The discussion focuses on the two prongs for rebuttal—danger to the community and flight risk—and the different legal standards of proof required for each.
DOJ-OGR-00000539.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, concerning Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The text captures a dialogue between the Court and defense attorney Mr. Weinberg. The Court lists various crimes involving minors that carry a presumption of remand. Mr. Weinberg acknowledges the gravity of the allegations against Jeffrey Epstein but argues that his case does not fit the typical profile ('heartland') of commercial sex trafficking statutes (1591) which usually involve servitude, enslavement, and pimps.
DOJ-OGR-00000537.jpg
Page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490 (USA v. Epstein) filed on July 24, 2019. Defense counsel argues for the defendant's release, citing his compliance with past registration (since 2010), jail time, and probation, while asserting that the Southern District of New York was not 'detached' from the Florida non-prosecution agreement. The Judge (The Court) responds by discussing the 'rebuttable presumption' for detention in cases involving children or young people.
DOJ-OGR-00000536.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding transcript dated July 24, 2019, discussing a case involving federal interest and an indictment against Mr. Epstein. Mr. Weinberg, identified as Deputy Attorney General, explains his approval in May or June 2008 for a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the federal government's involvement, including urging Florida to bring additional charges against Mr. Epstein. The discussion also touches upon the roles of Mr. Sloman and Mr. Filip within the Department of Justice and the scope of the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00000534.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 24, 2019, related to the Jeffrey Epstein case (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Attorneys Weinberg and Rossmiller discuss the history of the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Court, specifically referencing a March 2008 meeting in Washington between the defense and the DOJ's Criminal Division/Child Exploitation Unit. The discussion highlights that the defense argued the case lacked interstate elements needed for federal prosecution, and the DOJ subsequently issued a letter in May 2008 endorsing prosecutorial discretion due to the 'unusual' facts of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000533.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. Attorney Mr. Weinberg argues that the timing of Epstein's arrest was suspicious relative to a CVRA filing in Florida. He asserts that high-level DOJ officials, specifically Alice Fisher (then Head of the Criminal Division) and Sigal Mandelker (currently Undersecretary of the Treasury), were directly involved in approving the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00000531.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A representative for the government argues against the defendant's legal claims, stating a non-prosecution agreement is not applicable and that the case will proceed, and urges the court to order the defendant's detention. Following the government's statement, a lawyer named Mr. Weinberg begins to address the court.
DOJ-OGR-00000530.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, in the case of USA v. Epstein (1:19-cr-00490). Prosecutor Rossmiller describes search warrant materials containing numerous photos of nude women and young girls, noting that one individual in the photos has self-identified as a victim. The discussion also covers the defendant's sex offender registration in New York, confirming he is classified at the 'highest status of risk for re-offense.'
DOJ-OGR-00000529.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. In it, an attorney named Mr. Rossmiller responds to the Court, stating that Florida police reports suggest the defendant harassed individuals through agents or investigators. Mr. Rossmiller also explains that the government took no position on the defendant's application to seal financial information because they were unsure what would be submitted and had little time to respond.
DOJ-OGR-00000528.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. In it, a representative for the government argues against a defendant's release, citing a significant danger to victims and witnesses. The government alleges the defendant previously instructed people to lie to law enforcement and has recently sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to two individuals, supported by police reports from Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000527.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, during a bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutor Rossmiller argues against bail, citing Epstein's extensive foreign connections and the discovery of an expired 1980s passport issued by a foreign country with a residence listed as Saudi Arabia. The passport contained Epstein's photo but a different name, which the prosecution uses to argue flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00000526.jpg
This court transcript from July 24, 2019, captures a government representative, Mr. Rossmiller, arguing against a defendant's request for home confinement. Rossmiller contends the defendant's vast financial resources make them a flight risk, a claim bolstered by the recent discovery of a safe in the defendant's mansion containing large amounts of cash, diamonds, and a fraudulent foreign passport. The Court questions the specifics of this new evidence, such as whether the cash had been counted.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity