Event Details

This document is an internal email chain dated July 18, 2019, between prison officials (specifically an Associate Warden at FCI Estill and another redacted party). The emails confirm that inmate Jeffrey Edward Epstein (Reg. No. 76318-054) was denied bail during a court appearance and returned to custody without incident.

An internal Bureau of Prisons email chain dated July 18, 2019, reporting that Jeffrey Epstein (Reg. No. 76318-054) was not granted bail and returned from court without incident. The update was sent by an Associate Warden at FCI Estill.

An internal email chain dated July 18, 2019, reporting that Jeffrey Epstein (Reg. No. 76318-054) was denied bail and returned from court without incident. The update appears to originate from an Associate Warden at FCI Estill, despite Epstein being held in New York at the time, suggesting a Bureau of Prisons-wide notification or coordination.

A brief internal notification from an Associate Warden at FCI Estill stating that Epstein was not granted bail and returned from court without incident. The document contains significant redactions regarding the sender's identity and subsequent content.

This document is an internal email chain, likely within the Bureau of Prisons, dated July 18, 2019. An Associate Warden from FCI Estill reports that Jeffrey Epstein (Reg. No. 76318-054) was denied bail and returned from court without incident. A respondent replies via smartphone that they are not surprised by the denial, citing the recent denial of bail for R. Kelly.

This document contains a court order from Judge Richard M. Berman dated July 15, 2019, requesting the docketing of documents discussed at Jeffrey Epstein's bail hearing. Attached is an Asset Summary dated June 30, 2019, detailing Epstein's total assets of over $559 million, which includes significant holdings in cash, equities, hedge funds, and six major properties located in New York, New Mexico, Florida, France, and the US Virgin Islands.

A court document filed on July 10, 2020, in the Southern District of New York, wherein Ghislaine Maxwell waives her right to be physically present at her arraignment, bail hearing, and conference. The document is signed on her behalf by her attorney, Christian R. Everdell, and specifically cites the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for waiving physical presence at the bail hearing.

This document is page 10 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The court argues that the government's case is strong, citing anticipated testimony from three witnesses regarding the enticement of minors and corroborating flight records linking the Defendant to Epstein. The court concludes that the strength of the case creates a flight risk, supported by the Defendant's international ties, foreign citizenships, and significant financial resources.

Page 9 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court rejects the Defendant's renewed motion for bail, maintaining that no conditions of release can assure her appearance in court, despite the Government not proving she poses a danger to the community. The text discusses the weight of evidence, with the defense arguing the case relies too heavily on the uncorroborated recollections of three unidentified accusers.

This document is page 2 of a legal letter filed on July 11, 2019, in Case 1:19-cr-00490 (USA v. Epstein). The US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is requesting Judge Richard M. Berman to adjourn a bail hearing to a later date to allow the Court time to review the Government's reply. The letter is signed by Assistant US Attorneys Rossmiller, Moe, and Comey, and copied to defense counsel Weinberg and Weingarten.

This document is page 51 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490 (USA v. Jeffrey Epstein), filed on July 24, 2019. A member of the defense counsel is addressing the Judge regarding bail conditions, stating the defendant is willing to accept any monetary conditions, home detention, and monitoring to guarantee his appearance. The speaker also addresses the issue of sealing financial information, conceding that if monetary bail conditions are set, the associated financial information becomes a judicial document to which the public is entitled.

This document is a court docket sheet for Case 19-2221 (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein) covering the period of July 8 to July 15, 2019. It details the addition of defense attorneys (Weinberg, Weingarten, Fernich), the filing of motions regarding pretrial release and sealing documents, and the government's opposition to these motions. The document culminates in a Bail Hearing held on July 15, 2019, before Judge Richard M. Berman.

This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 38) dated August 10, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for the pretrial disclosure of the identities of 'Victims 1-3,' citing legal precedents that a defendant's right to prepare a defense outweighs privacy interests when a protective order is in place. The filing asserts that because the victims are now adults and many have already spoken publicly or filed civil suits against Epstein and Maxwell, there is no risk of intimidation.

This document is a page from the court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings from late December 2020 to mid-January 2021. Key events include the denial of Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail due to flight risk, the listing of specific criminal charges against her (including sex trafficking and perjury), and subsequent procedural motions regarding filing deadlines and a Notice of Appeal. The document records Judge Alison J. Nathan's orders denying bail and denying an extension of time to file an appeal notice.

This document is a 'Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding' filed in the Southern District of New York on July 14, 2020, for the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. In the document, signed on July 10, 2020, by her attorney Christian R. Everdell, Maxwell waives her right to appear in person for her arraignment, bail hearing, and conference, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for the bail hearing waiver.

This page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330) denies bail arguments for the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court affirms that the Government's case is strong, relying on testimony from three witnesses regarding the enticement of minors, flight records, and links to Epstein. The document cites the Defendant's international ties, foreign citizenships, foreign property, and extraordinary financial resources as reasons for continued flight risk.

This document is a formal letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Henry Pitman, dated July 8, 2019, arguing for the pretrial detention of Jeffrey Epstein. The government asserts Epstein poses an extraordinary flight risk due to his wealth and private planes, and a danger to the community due to a history of witness intimidation. It references his recent arrest upon returning from abroad and characterizes him as a serial sexual predator facing a massive sentence.

This document is page 29 of a court order filed on July 18, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The Court denies the adequacy of Epstein's proposed bail package, citing a lack of audited financial statements and criticizing the defense for providing only a cursory one-page asset summary totaling over $559 million. The Court characterizes the defense's conditional offer to provide better financials only if bail is granted as 'disingenuous' for a man of Epstein's wealth and financial experience.

This document is the first page of the Government's memorandum opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail, filed on December 18, 2020, in the SDNY. The Government argues that Maxwell remains a serious flight risk due to her extensive financial resources and foreign ties, citing the Court's previous denial of bail on July 14, 2020. The prosecution asserts that the new defense motion merely repackages old arguments and offers financial details the Court previously deemed irrelevant to the flight risk determination.