Event Details

An email exchange between the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Martin Weinberg, Michael Miller, Reid Weingarten) occurring in late August 2019, shortly after Epstein's death. The correspondence concerns the logistical wrap-up of the criminal case, specifically the 'expected nolle order' (dismissal), the return or certified destruction of discovery materials, and a follow-up on civil forfeiture.

A court order from the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, dated August 26, 2019, in the case of United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Richard M. Berman orders that the hearing scheduled for the following day, August 27, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., will take place in Courtroom 110 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse at 40 Foley Square.

An email exchange from April 22, 2021, regarding access to a court hearing scheduled for the following day. A redacted individual requests a link to watch the hearing. The response clarifies there is no video, provides a scheduling order with public dial-in info, and offers to coordinate with the Court to provide a specific access line designated for victims.

This document is an email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York to Epstein's defense lawyers (Weinberg, Miller, Weingarten) dated August 22, 2019 (shortly after Epstein's death). The email discusses a scheduled call regarding civil forfeiture and formally requests that the defense team return or certify the destruction of all discovery materials due to the expected 'nolle order' (dismissal of charges due to death). The prosecution aims to advise the Court at an upcoming Tuesday hearing that no discovery obligations remain.

A page from a court transcript filed on February 10, 2020, regarding Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. Defense attorney Mr. Foy is arguing for an adjournment of proceedings, citing the need for further investigation and a scheduling conflict with another trial set to begin July 20 before Judge Ramos at 40 Foley Square. Foy notes that the other trial involves a client facing a mandatory life sentence who has been incarcerated for nearly two years.

This document is an email chain between employees of the USAFLS (likely US Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida) dated November 20, 2008. The correspondence concerns a 'Response to Florida Bar Complaint,' indicating a legal challenge against one of the attorneys. The sender requests a colleague to PDF the document and send it to a personal Hotmail account, notes that a judge continued a hearing, and ends with a personal 'I luv u,' suggesting a close relationship between the parties.

This is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 8, 2021. Ms. Comey clarifies procedural questions with the Court regarding the presence of supervisors in the witness room. Mr. Everdell (Defense) raises an issue regarding a 'Touhy request' submitted several weeks prior, seeking a witness from Customs and Border Protection to authenticate border crossing records, noting there are complications but hoping for a resolution or stipulation.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 12/10/21) detailing a legal argument regarding expert witnesses. The defense discusses the potential testimony of Mr. Kelso, noting it depends on the testimony of government witness Mr. Flatley, who will speak about metadata retrieved from devices seized at Epstein's home. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach responds that the government has provided ample notice and '3500 information' regarding Flatley's expected testimony.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated July 22, 2022, involving Ms. Sternheim (defense) and Ms. Moe (government). The proceedings cover administrative confirmations of filings on ECF and a substantive discussion regarding the government's compliance with the 'Justice For All Act.' Specifically, Ms. Moe confirms that the government has notified six victims, proven at trial to be impacted, about the upcoming sentencing and their right to be heard.

A transcript page from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Noel et al.) filed on February 10, 2020. Government prosecutor Ms. Lonergan argues against a six-month adjournment, stating the trial focuses on a specific '14-hour period' at the MCC and is not complex. She notes that witness statements (3500 material) were provided unusually early to the defense.

This document is a transcript page from a court hearing dated April 1, 2021, involving prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Judge. Ms. Moe argues that the defendant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) poses a flight risk because she successfully purchased real estate under a fake name and lived undetected for a year. The Judge questions why this specific information was not presented until the government's reply brief.

This page is from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text discusses the legal standards for bail and detention, specifically addressing 'flight risk' and the burden of production. While the court acknowledges the defendant met a limited burden regarding family ties and finances, section B explicitly states that 'The new information does not alter the Court’s initial determination,' implying a denial of the renewed motion for bail based on factors including the nature of the offense (involving a minor victim).

This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated April 1, 2021. The Judge is pressing Ms. Moe (likely a government attorney) on the thoroughness of discovery and timely disclosures. Ms. Moe confirms her team met personally with the FBI in Florida to ensure they obtained a 'comprehensive set of materials.' The Judge emphasizes that they must actively retrieve files rather than just accepting initial representations. The discussion then moves to setting a schedule previously discussed with Mr. Cohen.

This document is page 6 of 7 from a court filing dated July 2, 2020 (Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJN). The text outlines the court's decision to implement a 'partial closure' of the courtroom, conducting the hearing via video and telephone conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court cites 'United States v. Alimehmeti' as precedent for limiting physical access while maintaining public access via other means (telephone).

This document is page 10 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on February 10, 2020. The Court sets a trial date for June 8 to allow for pretrial dispositions and discovery review. Defense counsel Mr. Foy expresses concern about a potential conflict with family travel planned for the end of June, to which the Judge responds that professional obligations must take priority.

This document is page 14 of a court transcript from September 3, 2019 (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten addresses the court regarding the death of Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that prison employees falsified information and ignored orders never to leave Epstein alone. Weingarten states that despite the medical examiner's conclusion of suicide by hanging, the defense has received medical evidence suggesting the injuries were more consistent with assault.

A transcript page from a court hearing dated April 1, 2021, likely involving Ghislaine Maxwell (represented by Mr. Cohen). The defense argues that the client's arrest, detention, and the COVID-19 crisis have made it difficult to provide financial information requested by Pretrial Services, specifically regarding a real estate transaction. The text also notes the government requested until November to complete discovery.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, regarding Case 21-770. Defense counsel is arguing before a judge regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's 'risk of flight' status. The defense contends that Maxwell's use of tinfoil or Faraday bags was to prevent phone hacking, not to destroy evidence, and describes a security sweep where agents confirmed with a security guard that Maxwell lives at the house and relies on the guard for groceries.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court is addressing defense arguments for release, comparing her situation to United States v. Friedman, but distinguishing it because Maxwell allegedly did not provide her whereabouts to the government despite staying in contact. The judge argues that Maxwell may not have realized the severity of the charges or the likelihood of prosecution until her actual indictment.