Event Details

This document is a page from a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. It argues 'Procedural Errors' regarding the sentencing of a defendant (identified by the sentencing date of June 28, 2022, as likely Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically claiming the District Court miscalculated sentencing guidelines and adhered to a pre-determined 240-month sentence despite errors in the calculation range. It references the Presentence Report (PSR) and the 'SH' (Sentencing Hearing).

This document is a collection of court records from June 2008 regarding the sentencing of Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County, Florida. It includes the Judgment and Sentence for charges of Felony Solicitation of Prostitution and Procuring a Person Under 18 for Prostitution, sentencing him to 18 months of community control and county jail time with work release. The documents also detail strict community control conditions, including sex offender registration, electronic monitoring, and employment at the Florida Science Foundation, as well as an order sealing a Non-Prosecution Agreement.

These are court documents from the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, dated June 30, 2008 (with an amended version dated July 1, 2008). The documents record Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea to the charge of procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution (Case No. 2008CF009381AXX). The court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to 18 months in the Palm Beach County Jail (PBCJ), followed by 12 months of Community Control I. Special conditions handwritten on the order require a DNA swab and mandate that Epstein register as a sexual offender within 48 hours of his release.

This document is an email chain from November 2007 involving Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and officials at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS), including Alexander Acosta (CC'd). Lefkowitz sends a response to a letter to 'Jeff'. The subsequent internal government emails discuss a Palm Beach Post article, with one official noting they 'especially like the part about how the feds were overreaching the whole time,' likely referencing public perception or a quote in the article.

This document page, stamped with a House Oversight Bates number, contains a caption describing historical figures Richard Hickock and Perry Smith (the killers from 'In Cold Blood'). The actual image is missing (blank space), and the text describes their reaction to their death sentences and the meager proceeds of their robbery ($50). The document appears to be an attachment or excerpt included in a larger production of documents.

This document is page 95 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. The judge rejects Maxwell's claims regarding poor treatment at the MDC and lack of preparation time, noting a pattern of dishonesty and 'deflection of blame' consistent with her perjury in a civil deposition. While acknowledging that Maxwell and her attorney Ms. Sternheim expressed sympathy for the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express acceptance of responsibility.

This document is the final page (45) of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Judge Alison J. Nathan ruled on motions regarding multiplicity, dismissing Counts One and Five as multiplicitous with Count Three, and ordering judgment of conviction on Counts Three, Four, and Six. The document confirms the sentencing date for June 28, 2022, and explicitly links the Defendant to a decade-long conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein to groom and abuse underage girls.

This document is a court order from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge rules that while the Defendant challenges whether Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant meet the statutory definition of 'crime victims' under the CVRA, the Court has broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to consider information at sentencing. Consequently, the Court permits these four women to provide written submissions for the sentencing record but denies their requests to make in-person statements.

This document is page 88 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The Judge ('The Court') is addressing the courtroom regarding sentencing guidelines, stating the applicable range is 188 to 235 months' imprisonment. The Judge outlines the legal requirements under *Booker* and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) for determining a sentence that is 'sufficient, but no greater than necessary.'

This document is page 2 of a government filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 24, 2022. The Government argues that victims have a right to be heard at sentencing and opposes the defendant's request to redact victim impact statements, citing that privacy interests belong to the victims, not the defendant. The filing cites legal precedents (Eberhard, Lugosch) regarding the Court's discretion to accept information and the standards for sealing documents.

This document is a page from a court transcript (specifically page 17 of the session, page 132 of the filing) involving a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Judge regarding sentencing procedures. The Judge confirms the rejection of a redaction request and states that testimony from an individual named 'Kate' is relevant to the sentencing. The parties agree to delay arguments regarding offense level calculations and financial penalties until a later point in the proceeding.

This document is the final page (6 of 6) of a court exhibit filed on March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains the conclusion of a news article, likely from 'The Independent,' which quotes an unidentified man asserting Maxwell's knowledge of illicit activities and notes that her sentencing schedule has not yet been determined. The page includes website navigation elements and a DOJ Bates stamp.

This document is a page from a court transcript (likely a sentencing hearing) concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The presiding judge rejects claims regarding Maxwell's poor treatment at the MDC, citing her extensive access to resources, and highlights a pattern of dishonesty regarding her finances and civil deposition testimony (perjury). While noting that Maxwell and her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, acknowledged the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express remorse or accept responsibility for her actions.

This page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) summarizes the procedural history and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details her conviction on counts of sex trafficking and conspiracy, her acquittal on one count of enticement, and her sentence of 240 months imprisonment plus fines issued by Judge Nathan. The document also begins a 'Statement of Facts' noting that the government established Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein facilitated sexual abuse of minors from 1994 to 2004.

This document is a narrative summary of a sentencing hearing for a defendant named McDaniel, presided over by Judge Zloch. The text details arguments regarding sentencing length, character references, and the victim's mother's statement regarding McDaniel's manipulation and grooming behavior. The page concludes with Judge Zloch interrupting to inquire about a reference to McDaniel's involvement with another minor girl.

This document is a page from a character reference letter submitted by Kevin Maxwell on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell ahead of her sentencing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The letter highlights her empathy and work in ocean conservation, urging the judge to weigh her 'lifetime good character' against the gravity of her offenses.

This document is a page from a court transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing hearing. The judge discusses the difficult conditions at the MDC during the pandemic, acknowledging they were harsh for all inmates, and notes Maxwell's specific security risks as a high-profile sex offender. However, the judge explicitly rejects the defense's argument that Maxwell was singled out for uniquely harsh treatment compared to other inmates.