Laura Menninger
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
39
Very Strong
|
43 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Jeff Pagliuca
|
Business associate |
14
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Business associate |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Co counsel |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Jeff Pagliuca
|
Co counsel |
9
Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ghislaine Maxwell
|
Client |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigrid S. McCawley
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Business associate |
6
|
6 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Lack of relationship |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
None |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Co counsel |
5
|
5 | |
|
person
Bobbi C Sternheim
|
Business associate |
5
|
5 | |
|
person
Assistant United States Attorney
|
Opposing counsel |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
R
|
Co counsel |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Nicole Simmons
|
Business associate |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Assistant United States Attorney
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal stipulation | The prosecution and defense formally agreed that Government Exhibits 52A, 52D, 52E, 52F, 52G, and... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Pretrial conference | A pretrial conference was held where counsel for the government and defendant made their appearan... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | An opening statement was made by Ms. Sternheim on behalf of her client, Ghislaine Maxwell, in cas... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The defense, led by Ms. Sternheim, delivers its opening statement in the criminal trial of Ghisla... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2021-12-18 | N/A | Jury Trial held before Judge Alison J. Nathan | Court | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Legal agreement | A stipulation was agreed upon by the defense and prosecution to allow Defense Exhibit A1 to be re... | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Legal stipulation | The prosecution and defense agreed that Government Exhibit 1010 may be received in evidence at tr... | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-12-13 | N/A | Civil Trial Conflict | Unknown | View |
| 2021-12-13 | N/A | Civil Trial Conflict for Laura Menninger | Unknown | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Legal agreement | A stipulation was signed agreeing that Government Exhibit 1009 may be received in evidence at trial. | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-12-09 | N/A | Jury Trial Proceedings | SDNY Court | View |
| 2021-12-09 | N/A | Jury Trial proceedings held | Court (before Judge Alison ... | View |
| 2021-12-06 | N/A | Jury Trial held | Court (Judge Alison J. Nathan) | View |
| 2021-12-06 | N/A | Jury Trial as to Ghislaine Maxwell | SDNY Court | View |
| 2021-12-02 | N/A | Jury Trial proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2021-11-30 | N/A | Jury Trial | SDNY Court | View |
| 2021-11-29 | N/A | Jury Selection / Jury Trial Begins | Court | View |
| 2021-11-29 | N/A | Jury Selection / Jury Trial | SDNY Court | View |
| 2021-11-28 | N/A | Stipulation agreed upon regarding the admission of Government Exhibits 1004 and 11-16. | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-11-27 | N/A | Laura Menninger sends supplemental letter regarding anticipated testimony of Mr. [Redacted] to US... | N/A | View |
| 2021-11-21 | N/A | Submission of proposed redactions regarding Witness-3 | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2021-11-20 | N/A | Exchange of legal documents regarding redactions for Witness-3 evidence. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2021-11-20 | N/A | Hard drive with discovery materials sent via FedEx to Laura Menninger's office in Colorado. | Colorado | View |
| 2021-11-17 | Legal proceeding | Jury selection continued for Ghislaine Maxwell's trial and was adjourned. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-11-16 | Legal proceeding | Voir Dire held for Ghislaine Maxwell's trial. Jury selection began and was adjourned. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00015168.jpg
This document is a legal stipulation from the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 17, 2021. It records an agreement between the prosecution (SDNY) and the defense to admit specific exhibits (MG-12, MG-1, 610-A, and A-5) into evidence. The document bears signatures from both the Assistant United States Attorneys and Maxwell's defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00015166.jpg
This document is a legal stipulation from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (S2 20 CR 330). It represents an agreement between the prosecution and defense regarding the authenticity of UK land registry records. Specifically, it validates records retrieved in 2021 concerning properties at 69 Stanhope Mews East and 44 Kinnerton Street in London, with one record dating back to ownership confirmation in January 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00002380.jpg
This document is a declaration from attorney Sigrid S. McCawley, filed in court on March 4, 2021. McCawley attests that the attached exhibits (4 and 5) are true copies of a proposed Protective Order that was sent to Laura Menninger on February 25, 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00002379(1).jpg
This document is a legal declaration by Sigrid S. McCawley, an attorney for the plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The declaration is in support of the plaintiff's response to a motion for a protective order filed by the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. McCawley attests to the authenticity of three attached exhibits: a notice and re-notice for Maxwell's deposition, and an email from Maxwell's counsel, Laura Menninger.
DOJ-OGR-00016914.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell presents stipulations agreed upon by both parties, including the birth date of Mike Wallace and the opening dates of *The Lion King* on Broadway. The page concludes with the beginning of a written stipulation regarding a witness named 'Kate' attending a meeting with prosecutors in September, listing the full legal teams for both the prosecution (US Attorney's Office) and the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009084.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed on February 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The potential juror denies having any personal or familial connections or dealings with the defense attorneys (Christian Everdell, Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, Bobbi Sternheim) or the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan. As the juror answered 'No' to all questions, the follow-up section for explanation is left blank.
DOJ-OGR-00009861.jpg
This document is a news article detailing the perspective of a juror, 'Scotty,' from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Scotty explains that the defense team's aggressive tactics, particularly attorney Laura Menninger's questioning of a victim, backfired and helped convince the jury of the defense's lack of respect for the victims. The article also contains a sidebar about a separate, 'brutal' court hearing for Prince Andrew in New York concerning a lawsuit filed by his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.
DOJ-OGR-00009775.jpg
This document is a portion of a juror questionnaire for case 20-cr-000389-AEN, filed on March 24, 2022. The respondent, identified as Juror ID 50, attests that they do not personally know and have had no dealings with any of the listed defense attorneys or the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan. The juror's negative responses indicate no known conflicts of interest with the key legal figures in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009677.jpg
This document is a portion of a juror questionnaire from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 9, 2022. Juror ID 50 attests that they do not know and have no past or present dealings with any of the listed defense attorneys (Christian Everdell, Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, Bobbi Sternheim) or the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan. The responses indicate no declared conflicts of interest between the potential juror and the key legal figures in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00005374.jpg
This is the final signature page (page 17 of 17) of a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The page contains proposed jury instructions (Paragraph 67) regarding the prohibition of electronic communications and social media usage by jurors during the trial. It is signed by the prosecution team (US Attorney's Office) and the defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, dated October 11, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00005365.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated October 22, 2021, containing proposed voir dire questions (21-25) for the jury selection in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It lists the specific legal teams for both the defense (led by Everdell, Menninger, Pagliuca, Sternheim) and the prosecution (led by US Attorney Damian Williams and AUSAs Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, Rohrbach). The document includes margin comments highlighting a dispute between the prosecution and defense regarding whether to refer to Maxwell as 'the defendant' or 'the accused'.
DOJ-OGR-00005332.jpg
This document is page 10 of a juror questionnaire from the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 22, 2021. The questionnaire asks potential jurors to disclose any personal acquaintance or dealings with key individuals involved in the case, including the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, the prosecution team, the defense team, and the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan. The purpose is to identify potential biases that could prevent a juror from being fair and impartial.
DOJ-OGR-00005295.jpg
This document is page 19 of a juror questionnaire for a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 22, 2021. It asks potential jurors to disclose any personal connections or dealings with the defense attorneys (Christian Everdell, Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, Bobbi Sternheim) and their respective law firms. It also asks about any connections to the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan, or her staff, to assess potential bias for jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00011707.jpg
This document is a transcript of the defense's opening statement in the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. The defense attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that the jury must focus solely on whether the government can prove the charges against Maxwell, not on the actions of Epstein. She characterizes the prosecution's case as weak, asserting it relies on the testimony of four accusers whose memories are unreliable, corrupted over 25 years, and motivated by a desire for money.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017822.jpg
This document is a court exhibit containing a Miami Herald article detailing allegations against Alan Dershowitz by Sarah Ransome and Virginia Roberts regarding Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring. It discusses a defamation settlement where Dershowitz paid $900,000 to Roberts' lawyers, despite his claims of vindication and an exonerating investigation by Louis Freeh. The text also references sealed emails and court motions to make these documents public.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017820.jpg
This document is a printout of a Miami Herald article filed as a court exhibit in April 2019. It details Alan Dershowitz's vehement denial of sexual misconduct allegations made by Sarah Ransome and Virginia Roberts, framing himself as a victim of attorney David Boies. The article also discusses recent settlements involving Jeffrey Epstein, the controversy surrounding his 2008 plea deal negotiated by Alexander Acosta, and calls by lawmakers for a federal investigation into that deal.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017814.jpg
This document is a printout of a Miami Herald article from April 2019, filed as an exhibit in a House Oversight committee record. It details the legal battle between the Miami Herald and Ghislaine Maxwell regarding sealed court documents, mentions Epstein's cooperation with the FBI ('valuable consideration'), and describes his lifestyle and sex offender registration status across different states. It includes quotes from Maxwell's lawyer attacking Virginia Roberts' credibility and a former prosecutor questioning Epstein's lenient treatment.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018043.jpg
A Miami Herald article included as a court exhibit discussing allegations against Alan Dershowitz by Sarah Ransome and Virginia Roberts. It details a defamation settlement where Dershowitz reportedly paid $900,000 to Roberts' lawyers, Edwards and Cassell, and mentions mentions Ransome's claims involving high-profile figures like the Clintons and Donald Trump.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018041.jpg
This document is a court exhibit containing a Miami Herald article discussing the fallout of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on Alan Dershowitz's denial of allegations made by a woman named Ransome, his conflict with attorney David Boies, and recent settlements involving Epstein. The article also mentions the scrutiny on Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta regarding the 2008 plea deal he negotiated for Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017977.jpg
This document is a printout of a Miami Herald article dated April 3, 2019, filed as a court exhibit in Case 1:19-cv-03377. It discusses legal motions to unseal documents related to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, noting Epstein's 'valuable consideration' given to the FBI in 2013. It also details Epstein's residency on Little St. James, his sex offender registration status in different jurisdictions, and includes a photo of a woman (likely Virginia Roberts Giuffre, though not explicitly captioned in the text).
RE: US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view ev...
Clarifies that the provided spreadsheet only indexes physical evidence produced in discovery, not all items in custody. Mentions August 20, 2020 production of search warrant returns.
RE: US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view ev...
Proposes 1:30 p.m. ET / 11:30 a.m. MST for a call tomorrow and asks for an alternative if not suitable.
RE: US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view ev...
Sending copy of index of physical items from FBI-Miami office produced Aug 21, 2020, and referencing scans within Bates range SDNY_GM_00172218-SDNY_GM_00173007.
U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) -- Objections...
Submitting a letter setting forth Ms. Maxwell's objections to government redactions to their Omnibus Response and Exhibit 5.
RE: US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view ev...
Asks if the provided index is the only one available for physical evidence.
RE: US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view ev...
Asking if the provided index is the only one available.
RE: US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)...
Asking if the attached index is the only index of physical evidence available.
RE: US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)...
Sending index of physical items in FBI custody (Miami) produced on Aug 21, 2020. Mentions Bates range SDNY_GM_00172218-SDNY_GM_00173007.
US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view eviden...
Counsel - Please see attached correspondence. -Laura
US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view eviden...
Submission of attached correspondence regarding evidence viewing.
US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view eviden...
Initial request with attached correspondence.
US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view eviden...
Counsel – Please see attached correspondence.
US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view eviden...
Sending attached correspondence.
RE: US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view ev...
Attaches correspondence.
US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view eviden...
Cover email for an attached letter regarding a request to view evidence.
US v. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view eviden...
Initial request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, and scenes.
Protective Order
Detailed negotiation regarding a Protective Order, defining 'Confidential', removing 'Highly Confidential', and requesting a laptop for the client to review discovery in jail.
No Subject
An email correspondence from Defendant's counsel, Laura Menninger, to Plaintiff's counsel, Sigrid McCawley. The content is not detailed but the email is attached as Exhibit 3.
Response in case
Claimed Roberts fabricated stories for money.
Response in Maxwell case
Claimed Roberts fabricated abuse stories for money.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity