Mar-a-Lago
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Household/Owner
|
Club membership |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Employee |
5
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00018887.jpg
This document is page 25 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorney Mr. Rohrbach argues to the Court regarding the reliability of forms filled out by Mr. Roberts, an employee of Mar-a-Lago, concerning his dependents and insurance coverage. The argument centers on whether Mr. Roberts had a business duty to be truthful to his employer, distinguishing the situation from the precedent set in United States v. Lieberman, though the Court remains skeptical.
DOJ-OGR-00018879.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal debate between attorneys Rohrbach and Sternheim before a judge regarding the admissibility of an insurance form containing a statement by a 'Mr. Roberts'. The discussion centers on whether the act of providing insurance and paying medical bills through Mar-a-Lago constitutes a course of conduct, and whether a witness can be questioned about practices that occurred before their time of involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00018875.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether employee insurance documents from Mar-a-Lago should be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are retained for business purposes like potential disputes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain hearsay and are not integral to Mar-a-Lago's business. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before making a ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00018874.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues against admitting insurance requests as business records, stating they do not prove Virginia Roberts was employed by or present at Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach clarifies the government's intent is to show Virginia Roberts was the dependent of Sky Roberts, who is confirmed to be a Mar-a-Lago employee.
DOJ-OGR-00018872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing legal arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence. Ms. Sternheim objects to documents based on relevance and foundation, arguing there is no tie between Virginia Roberts and Mar-a-Lago or the Trump company. Mr. Rohrbach argues the documents are relevant to connect the Virginia Roberts named on a birth certificate (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual present at Mar-a-Lago in the year 2000, corroborating testimony from Juan and Carolyn Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018591.jpg
This court transcript details a legal argument about the admissibility of evidence in a case against the defendant, Epstein. The speaker argues that a topless photograph of a victim, taken at a tropical location consistent with flight records, is relevant to prove their relationship was sexual in nature. This evidence is intended to counter the defense's potential argument that the victim was merely a professional masseuse providing a treatment to the defendant at Mar-a-Lago.
DOJ-OGR-00016094.jpg
This document is a Personnel Action Notice from The Mar-a-Lago Club regarding an employee named Sky Roberts. It records his hiring on April 11, 2000, for a maintenance position at a rate of $12.00. The document includes signatures from Human Resources and the Managing Director, with personal identifying information (SSN, address, phone) redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00021612.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript containing a victim impact statement written by Virginia Giuffre and read by her counsel. The statement addresses Ghislaine Maxwell directly, recounting how Maxwell recruited Giuffre at Mar-a-Lago in the summer of 2000 and procured her for Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre accuses Maxwell of being the 'door to hell' who used her femininity to betray victims, acting as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.'
DOJ-OGR-00021552.jpg
This court transcript page, dated June 29, 2023, documents a judge overruling several objections from attorney Mr. Everdell. The judge upholds evidence against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, including testimony that she targeted a victim named Virginia, metadata suggesting she authored an essay, and the assertion that she received approximately $23 million from co-conspirator Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00017158.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker challenges the prosecution's portrayal of Virginia Roberts as a victim, questioning why she did not testify and presenting evidence that she was an 18-year-old masseuse at Mar-a-Lago. The summation concludes by attempting to shift blame, arguing that it was Virginia Roberts, not Ghislaine Maxwell, who introduced another young woman, Carolyn, to Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00017084.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Moe) summation in a criminal trial, filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor outlines the evidence for Count Five, a sex trafficking conspiracy charge spanning 2000-2004, detailing how the defendant (identified as Maxwell) and co-conspirator Epstein recruited and trafficked victims Carolyn and Virginia Roberts. The prosecutor explains to the jury that they only need to find one instance of agreement and one step taken to carry out the conspiracy to find the defendant guilty.
DOJ-OGR-00017074.jpg
This document is a legal summation from a court case, outlining Ghislaine Maxwell's role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation from 1995 to 2004. It details how Maxwell recruited, groomed, and abused multiple young women, including Jane, Annie Farmer, Virginia Roberts, and Carolyn, across various locations like New Mexico and Palm Beach. The text also highlights significant financial payments from Epstein to Maxwell, totaling over $23 million, and describes the evolution of the abuse into a 'pyramid scheme' where victims were incentivized to recruit others.
DOJ-OGR-00017070.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court summation by Ms. Moe in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Moe argues that Maxwell's contact book entries for 'massages' were not legitimate, using the entry for Virginia Roberts as a key example. She connects Maxwell to Virginia through her father, Sky Roberts, an employee at Mar-a-Lago where they met, and through flight records showing Virginia flew with Maxwell when she was 17.
DOJ-OGR-00017062.jpg
This document is a page from the closing summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecutor discusses the recruitment of a victim named Carolyn, connecting her to Virginia Roberts. The text references testimony from Juan Alessi (referred to as 'John'), who described driving Maxwell near Mar-a-Lago when Maxwell ordered him to stop the car so she could approach and recruit a young Virginia Roberts.
DOJ-OGR-00010549.jpg
This legal document details a scheme of sexual abuse involving the defendant (Maxwell) and Epstein. It describes how Maxwell recruited 17-year-old Virginia Roberts in the summer of 2000, who was then paid for sexualized massages. The scheme escalated into a 'pyramid scheme' when Virginia, in 2001, introduced 14-year-old Carolyn, who was subsequently abused by Epstein over 100 times under the defendant's direction.
DOJ-OGR-00013308.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Witness Gill Velez testifies during direct examination by prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibit 823, identified as a personnel action notice from Mar-a-Lago records documenting the hiring of Sky Roberts. The exhibit is admitted into evidence over an objection by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00013306.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of Gill Velez, filed on August 10, 2022. Velez identifies herself as the Human Resources Director for Florida Properties Management, the company that manages the Mar-a-Lago Club, and states she has worked there for nearly 15 years. She describes her responsibilities and confirms that employee records are typically stored as paper files in individual folders.
DOJ-OGR-00013300.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Court and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss the admissibility of government exhibits linking Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) to Mar-a-Lago through her father, Sky Roberts. The prosecution argues that Sky Roberts' employment records at Mar-a-Lago corroborate testimony that Maxwell met Virginia Roberts there.
DOJ-OGR-00013297.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between the defense (Sternheim) and prosecution (Rohrbach) regarding the admissibility of evidence (exhibits 823 and 824) and hearsay concerns. The prosecution mentions Ms. Gill, the head of HR for Mar-a-Lago, noting she has reviewed a specific employment file relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00013295.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Rohrbach (Gov) and Sternheim (Defense) argue before the Judge regarding the admissibility of insurance forms and medical billing records related to Mar-a-Lago. The debate centers on whether a form filled out by 'Mr. Roberts' constitutes hearsay and if a witness, Ms. Gill, can testify to practices that occurred before her employment began.
DOJ-OGR-00013294.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) in the case USA v. Maxwell. The Court and attorneys discuss the admissibility of Mar-a-Lago personnel records (Exhibits 823 and 824) intended to prove that Virginia Roberts was the daughter and dependent of an employee, Mr. Roberts. The debate centers on whether the employee-filled forms constitute hearsay or admissible business records verified by the employer.
DOJ-OGR-00013291.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal debate over whether employee insurance records from Mar-a-Lago (Government Exhibit 824) can be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are kept for business purposes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain inadmissible hearsay. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before ruling on their admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00013290.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether an insurance form can be used as evidence. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that a form filled out by Mar-a-Lago employee Sky Roberts for Virginia Roberts is not a business record of Mar-a-Lago and cannot prove Virginia Roberts' employment there. The government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, contends the form is relevant because it shows Virginia Roberts was the dependent of a Mar-a-Lago employee, while the judge notes the records do not directly support claims of her employment.
DOJ-OGR-00013289.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a lawyer's argument for the admissibility of evidence in a sex trafficking case. The lawyer, Mr. Rohrbach, explains the relevance of a phone number for Sky Roberts (linked to Virginia Roberts's parents) and personnel records from Mar-a-Lago. He outlines the expected testimony of Ms. Gill, Mar-a-Lago's records custodian, to establish the documents as valid business records.
DOJ-OGR-00013288.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues for the relevance of documents, such as a birth certificate, to connect a Virginia Roberts (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual who was allegedly present at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 and who was the subject of testimony by Juan Alessi and Carolyn. Opposing counsel, Ms. Sternheim, objects on the grounds of relevance and foundation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity