SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00021041.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) documenting a judge's ruling during sentencing. The judge finds the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on at least two occasions. The judge overrules a defense objection that argued the sentencing enhancement should only apply if the defendant posed a continuing danger to the public, citing that the text of the Guidelines is unambiguous.
DOJ-OGR-00021040.jpg
This legal document is a judicial analysis regarding the sentencing of a defendant. The judge concludes that the evidence, including message pads, does not sufficiently prove the offense continued after November 1, 2004, and therefore the 2003 sentencing guidelines must apply instead of the 2004 guidelines. The judge then begins to address the defendant's objections to specific sentencing enhancements under the 2003 guidelines, confirming that the requirements for an enhancement under 4B1.5(b) have been met.
DOJ-OGR-00021039.jpg
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, analyzes evidence to determine if a sex trafficking conspiracy involving Epstein continued into late 2004. It scrutinizes the testimony of a woman named Carolyn, detailing her visits to Epstein's house, phone calls she made to him in the summer of 2004, and her final visit in 2005 after she turned 18. The analysis suggests a lack of evidence for conspiratorial conduct in the specific period of November-December 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00021038.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely United States v. Maxwell given the context and case number 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. The text details a judge's analysis of sentencing guidelines (2003 vs 2004) and determines the timeline of a sexual abuse conspiracy, specifically noting that the conspiracy involving a victim named Carolyn ended in early 2005 when she turned 18. The judge explicitly states that they found Carolyn to be a credible witness.
DOJ-OGR-00021036.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the explanatory commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, when offered a chance to respond, declines to make a verbal argument and instead rests on her previously submitted written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00021035.jpg
A page from a court transcript (likely the sentencing hearing in US v. Maxwell, filed in the 2023 appeal) debating sentencing enhancements. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues that testimony from pilots proves Maxwell had supervisory authority over Sarah Kellen within the conspiracy. Defense attorney Everdell rebuts that Maxwell's presence while Kellen scheduled 'massage appointments' does not constitute supervision. The defense also mentions a 'five-point enhancement for repeated and dangerous sex offenders.'
DOJ-OGR-00021034.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. The defense argues against a sentencing 'leadership enhancement' for Ghislaine Maxwell, citing testimony from pilot Larry Visoski and assistant Cimberly Espinosa to prove that Sarah Kellen worked solely for Jeffrey Epstein, not Maxwell. In rebuttal, the government (Ms. Moe) cites testimony from a victim named Carolyn, who stated that Maxwell remained present at the Palm Beach residence even when Kellen took over scheduling massages.
DOJ-OGR-00021032.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the roles and relationships of individuals involved in a scheme, specifically focusing on the defendant's leadership over Sarah Kellen and their shared association with Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell. It highlights evidence from flight records showing the defendant and Sarah Kellen traveling on Epstein's private jet, indicating an overlap in their involvement as close associates in an ongoing scheme. The discussion also touches upon legal arguments regarding the supervision of criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00021031.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Ms. Moe, responds to a judge's question about the hierarchy of a criminal conspiracy. Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence shows the unnamed defendant held a leadership position superior to that of Sarah Kellen, who was an assistant to Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. The argument is based on the defendant's role shifting over time and Kellen taking on tasks like calling victims, placing the defendant higher in the scheme's structure.
DOJ-OGR-00021030.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 29, filed 02/28/2023) involving the sentencing or legal arguments in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues to the Judge that Maxwell qualifies for a sentencing enhancement as an 'organizer or leader' because trial evidence proved she supervised Sarah Kellen. The discussion centers on whether the criminal activity involved five participants or was 'otherwise extensive,' with the government asserting Maxwell's supervision of Kellen satisfies the legal requirements.
DOJ-OGR-00021029.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 28, 2023, likely from the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). Defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) argues that evidence of money moving to buy a helicopter does not prove the defendant's continued criminal involvement, comparing it to pilot Larry Visoski holding assets for Epstein without being a co-conspirator. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) counters that the financial evidence was introduced to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020913.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a procedural argument between counsel. Government counsel Ms. Moe pushes for a quick, by-Friday deadline for a post-trial briefing on an issue concerning Juror 50's testimony. Opposing counsel Ms. Sternheim argues for a two-week extension, citing the issue's importance and an upcoming trial she is starting on the 16th. The judge acknowledges the issue's significance but appears to favor a more expedited schedule.
DOJ-OGR-00020912.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) involving the questioning (voir dire) of a potential juror. The text covers a sidebar conference where defense counsel (Ms. Sternheim) requests the Judge ask the juror if they read the case summary, specifically regarding the charges. The Judge then reads a portion of the indictment summary to the juror, stating that the defendant is charged with conspiring with and aiding Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors between 1994 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00020911.jpg
This document contains pages 43 and 44 of a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. The text records the questioning of an individual (likely a juror) regarding their social media interactions with witness Annie Farmer and their failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse on a jury questionnaire. The respondent explains they thought the questionnaire did not ask about their 'personal abuse' and admits to making a 'huge mistake' in their interpretation.
DOJ-OGR-00020910.jpg
This document is a transcript page (p. 84 of 221) dated February 28, 2023, related to Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). It captures a 'voir dire' or post-trial hearing where a witness (implied to be a juror) is being questioned by a judge ('Your Honor') about their attention span during jury selection, potential distractions regarding an 'ex,' and their decision to give press interviews about being a sexual abuse victim. The witness defends their accuracy in answering questionnaires and explains they did not believe their interview would garner significant news attention or alert their family to their abuse history.
DOJ-OGR-00020909.jpg
This document is a transcript page (A-283) from Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), documenting a voir dire hearing. The Judge questions 'Juror 50' regarding their lack of diligence in filling out a jury questionnaire; the juror admits to being 'distracted' and rushing ('float, fly through it') to finish. Prosecutor Ms. Moe confirms the government has no further questions at that stage.
DOJ-OGR-00020907.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (dated Feb 28, 2023, Case 22-1426) involving a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe before the Judge. The discussion centers on the credibility of a male witness/victim who gave an interview to a journalist named Lucia from 'The Independent' about sexual abuse. Everdell argues the witness is inconsistent regarding whether he understood that speaking to the press would make his identity and abuse public.
DOJ-OGR-00020906.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Moe) about a potential juror. The conversation focuses on the juror's questionnaire answers, his past as a victim of sexual abuse, and his interactions with a journalist named Lucia, questioning his understanding of the public consequences and his ability to be an impartial juror.
DOJ-OGR-00020905.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell are arguing before the Judge that a specific juror (referred to as 'he') demonstrated bias and dishonesty by publicly discussing his own history of sexual abuse and his role in the trial on Facebook and to victim Annie Farmer, despite claiming during selection he didn't want to share that history. The Court agrees to ask the juror to reconcile his claim of privacy with his public media engagement.
DOJ-OGR-00020904.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a legal argument about jury selection. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, requests to ask a juror more detailed follow-up questions about their history of sexual abuse to assess potential bias, but the Court denies the request. Another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then questions the judge about the information provided to the juror regarding the nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00020903.jpg
This document contains pages 27 and 28 of a court transcript designated 'M38TMAX1'. It details a sidebar conference following the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding his history of sexual abuse and ability to be impartial. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues for further questioning regarding the juror's 'healing process' and self-identification as a victim to ensure he can be impartial in a sexual abuse case, while Ms. Moe proposes questions about the juror's adherence to the questionnaire process.
DOJ-OGR-00020900.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal hearing (likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial juror misconduct inquiry, given the 'M38TMAX1' code and content). A witness (a juror) is being questioned about why they did not disclose their history of sexual abuse on a jury questionnaire (specifically question 48) but subsequently discussed it in media interviews. The witness claims they were distracted when reading the questionnaire and only brought up the abuse to reporters to explain their reasoning during jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00020899.jpg
This document is a transcript (pages 19-20) from Case 22-1426 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), dated February 28, 2023. It records the questioning of a witness (likely a juror) regarding their completion of a 'thick' jury questionnaire. The witness admits to 'skimming' and 'flying through' questions based on 'if yes' prompts, stating they were distracted and that the process felt like it took hours.
DOJ-OGR-00020898.jpg
Pages 17 and 18 of a transcript from Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal/post-trial hearings). A juror is being questioned about whether they intentionally provided inaccurate answers regarding a history of sexual abuse to get on the jury. The juror admits they did not fill out the questionnaire with diligence because they felt rushed and did not believe they would be selected.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity