DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00011628.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument where the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) is barred by the Court from calling an attorney as a witness without prior briefing due to privilege concerns regarding 'Minor Victim 4'. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) then requests clarification on whether the jury will be instructed during preliminary instructions that witnesses will use pseudonyms, to which the Court agrees to address before opening statements.
DOJ-OGR-00011625.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Comey (Government) argues that the defense should not be allowed to cross-examine a witness regarding juvenile arrests and old misdemeanors, and asks for a pretrial ruling to determine if she needs to disclose these facts on direct examination to 'draw the sting.' The Judge orders the parties to have a 'mature, reasonable discussion' to resolve agreed-upon issues and to submit only genuine legal disputes in writing.
DOJ-OGR-00011619.jpg
This document is page 100 of a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge advises the defendant of their right to appeal the conviction and sentence within 14 days. The Court also discusses administrative matters, specifically setting the 'end of the conspiracy date' to July 2004 for the purpose of the judgment, to which neither the prosecution (Ms. Moe) nor the defense (Ms. Sternheim) objects at that moment.
DOJ-OGR-00011611.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The judge outlines the rationale for a substantial sentence, citing the gravity of the offense, the harm to victims, and the need for general deterrence against sexual abuse and trafficking of minors. The judge emphasizes that Maxwell's wealth and status do not place her above the law.
DOJ-OGR-00011608.jpg
This document is page 89 of a sentencing transcript filed on July 22, 2022, involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The presiding judge explains that Maxwell is being sentenced specifically for her own role in enticing, transporting, and trafficking underage girls (some as young as 14) for sexual abuse by and with Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing that she is not being punished merely as a proxy for Epstein but for her own direct participation in the abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00011585.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on July 22, 2022, containing a victim impact statement regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker, who has known Maxwell for many years, characterizes her as a manipulative and cruel person who uses kindness for recognition. The victim expresses pride in standing with other survivors ('sisters') to hold Maxwell accountable and vows to pass empowerment on to her daughter.
DOJ-OGR-00011579.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. A speaker named Ms. Moe concludes her argument for a harsh, above-guideline sentence, emphasizing accountability for the wealthy and powerful. Following this, Judge Nathan calls Ms. Farmer to the podium, who begins her victim impact statement describing the long-term psychological damage caused by the abuse she suffered at the hands of Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011577.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on July 22, 2022, concerning United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text, likely spoken by a prosecutor during sentencing arguments, characterizes Maxwell as Jeffrey Epstein's 'right hand' and a 'partner in crime' who preyed on children and viewed people as either 'disposable' or 'mattered.' It highlights that she received millions of dollars from Epstein to fund a luxurious lifestyle and emphasizes the lasting trauma inflicted on the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00011576.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing a statement, likely a closing argument or sentencing memo, regarding the defendant, Maxwell. The text details the defendant's predatory behavior, describing how she manipulated and trafficked young girls for sex to serve a middle-aged man.
DOJ-OGR-00011572.jpg
This document is page 53 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of assets in the Presentence Report (PSR), specifically noting a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge determines that Maxwell has failed to establish an inability to pay a fine, citing the bequest and $3.8 million in assets reported in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00011558.jpg
This document is page 39 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The judge is ruling on which sentencing guidelines apply (2003 vs 2004) based on the timeline of evidence involving 'Epstein's house' and a victim named Carolyn. The judge determines that message pads evidence (including exhibit GX-4B) does not sufficiently prove the offense continued after November 1, 2004, leading to the application of the 2003 guidelines and a discussion of the 4B1.5(b) enhancement for a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00011555.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 22, 2022. The Judge is issuing a ruling regarding objections to the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), specifically noting the defense's argument to use 2003 sentencing guidelines versus 2004 guidelines. The text explicitly mentions that the government's sole objection to the guideline calculation is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be formally considered victims.
DOJ-OGR-00011554.jpg
A page from a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that sentencing guidelines regarding 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' should not apply to his client, noting she has not been accused of a crime in over 18 years. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, declines to respond verbally, resting on previous written briefings.
DOJ-OGR-00011553.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, concerning Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text features arguments between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the prosecution regarding sentencing enhancements, specifically debating whether Maxwell exercised 'supervisory authority' over an employee named Kellen who scheduled massage appointments. The defense argues that Maxwell's presence in the house while Kellen worked does not constitute supervision, while the prosecution relies on pilot testimony to establish a chain of command.
DOJ-OGR-00011547.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell sentencing) dated July 22, 2022. The defense argues that money transfers for a helicopter and Larry Visoski holding car assets for Epstein do not prove the defendant's continued involvement in the conspiracy. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the financial evidence was offered to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011545.jpg
This is page 26 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the conspiracy charge cannot extend to 2005 because the individual named Carolyn was no longer a minor at that time (her birthday being in early January). Everdell also challenges the reliability and admissibility of an undated 'message pad' used as evidence, arguing it cannot be properly authenticated or dated.
DOJ-OGR-00011543.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on July 22, 2022. It details a legal argument between Ms. Moe and the Court regarding the timeline of a conspiracy, specifically whether it extended into 2005. Ms. Moe cites 'message pads' and a specific November 2004 message from an individual named Carolyn contacting 'the house' for an appointment as evidence that the conspiracy was still live during that period.
DOJ-OGR-00011531.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on July 22, 2022, involving the sentencing or factual findings regarding the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The judge overrules objections to Paragraph 55, stating the record supports that the defendant recruited a minor, Virginia, for sexualized massages with Epstein and was aware of the nature of the acts. The text also details that the defendant instructed Virginia to show another minor, Carolyn, 'what to do,' and that monetary incentives were used to encourage Virginia to recruit Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00011523.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00005893.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit 397-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It contains an excerpt from the 'Journal of Interpersonal Violence' discussing the historical definitions and psychological theories surrounding 'seduction,' 'grooming,' and 'rape' in the context of child sexual abuse. The text cites various psychoanalytic and psychological authors from the mid-20th century to contrast older definitions of seduction with the modern understanding of grooming as a method to facilitate sexual offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00005758.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents (page ii) for a legal filing (Document 394) submitted on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It outlines the structure of the filing, including a Factual Background, Argument, and Conclusion. The document bears a DOJ-OGR Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00005752.jpg
This is page 6 of 10 from a defense motion filed on October 29, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The document argues that specific witnesses (whose names are redacted) should be precluded from offering 'overview' testimony or expert opinions because the government failed to provide the required pretrial disclosures under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(1)(G). The text cites *United States v. Brooks* to argue that overview testimony by government agents can improperly influence the jury by introducing credibility assessments or hearsay not in evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002815.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing arguing against a defendant's subpoena requests, asserting they fail to meet the Nixon standard for admissibility and relevance. The text specifically challenges requests for materials from the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program and communications between the firm BSF and the U.S. Attorney, characterizing them as fishing expeditions or irrelevant work product.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019847.jpg
This document is a page from a larger report (identified by the House Oversight footer) analyzing the tenure of Preet Bharara at the Southern District of New York (SDNY). It criticizes the office for failing to prosecute individual banking executives following the 2008 financial crisis, noting that while firms like SAC Capital and JPMorgan Chase faced fines or pleas, individuals (with the exception of Kareem Serageldin) generally avoided criminal charges. The text discusses the jurisdictional habits of the SDNY and its handling of cases related to the Madoff Ponzi scheme and mortgage-backed securities.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031822.jpg
This document is an email sent on February 7, 2019, to 'jeevacation@gmail.com' (an address associated with Jeffrey Epstein). The sender (redacted) shares a Fox News article regarding the DOJ's investigation into Epstein's controversial plea bargain. The sender adds a personal comment noting it is 'bizarre' to see who attempts to gain 'political mileage' from the situation, referencing a headline that links Epstein to Clinton and a URL that links the plea deal to a Trump official.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity