The government
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
24
Very Strong
|
70 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Representative |
17
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
68 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
65 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Representative |
12
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
12
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
11
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
18 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
victims
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Witness prosecution |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Witness prosecution |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings/Trial discussions | Courtroom (referenced by Tr... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Modification of a Protective Order | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal Argument regarding NPA applicability | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Limited Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing Arguments and Jury Charge | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Modification of Protective Order | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Boies Schiller began producing materials not covered by protective orders in response to subpoenas. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial Testimony (Trial Tr. at 2518–22) | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Submission of evidence (Journal) | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Anticipated trial where evidence regarding victims and terms like 'rape' will be used. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Materials | Court (Southern District of... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's motion to unseal testimony and exhibits | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Entry of Non-Prosecution Agreement | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Previous hearing where government touted documentary evidence. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Three bail renewal hearings | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proffer session | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing regarding requested discovery | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transfer of legal materials | Court / MDC | View |
| N/A | N/A | The government served a redacted party with a subpoena to produce [redacted items]. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal defense against charges | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal indictment alleging Ms. Maxwell committed perjury. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness preparation for trial where the government asked McHugh to review exhibits. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government charged Jeffrey Epstein with conduct falling within the NPA time scope. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Bail hearing argument. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government secret deal (Non-Prosecution Agreement) | Florida (implied context of... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017886.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Kane. The questioning establishes that the school associated with the witness does not have knowledge of or a way to verify the accuracy of information on a specific form, including details about student referrals, financial responsibility, and who paid for the student's attendance. The witness repeatedly confirms their lack of knowledge and the school's lack of relevant records.
DOJ-OGR-00017878.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) before a judge. The discussion centers on the admissibility of a 'contact book' versus a 'household manual,' with the government arguing that the contact book belongs to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) and/or Jeffrey Epstein and constitutes statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy. The judge acknowledges the government's argument regarding the hearsay exception.
DOJ-OGR-00017877.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures an argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the admissibility of a 'book' or 'list' (likely an address book) and whether it constitutes hearsay. Pagliuca argues that the government is offering the document to prove the truth of the matter asserted—specifically that the people listed had contact with 'underage females'—rather than for a non-hearsay purpose like notice.
DOJ-OGR-00017854.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. The witness, Mr. Besselsen, testifies about Government Exhibit 741, identifying it as correspondence retrieved from a locked filing cabinet in the basement of the McWhorter dorm at Interlochen. The correspondence involves a letter from Interlochen's Vice President of Advancement to Jeffrey Epstein discussing the cost and concept of building a 'scholarship lodge' on the campus.
DOJ-OGR-00017834.jpg
A sidebar transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Court discuss the admissibility of testimony from a witness named Matt, specifically regarding whether a female accuser had revealed abuse allegations to him prior to meeting with the government. The Judge challenges the defense's objection, noting they had previously attacked the accuser's credibility regarding her financial background (living in a pool house, losing her home), making this testimony relevant as a 'prior consistent statement.'
DOJ-OGR-00017827.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the Judge discuss sealing exhibits and the use of a pseudonym for the next witness, 'Matt,' to protect the identity of the prior witness ('Jane'). The jury enters, and 'Matt' is sworn in to testify for the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00017825.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Ms. Menninger (Defense) regarding a witness named 'Jane.' The government requests permission for Jane to leave the district to return to her family while remaining available for potential recall, while the defense raises concerns regarding the witness's exposure to media coverage of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00017822.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar or legal argument where the defense objects to a witness named Matt using the term 'girls' when recounting what 'Jane' told him, as it implies underage status without proof. The Court sustains the objection, and Prosecutor Ms. Moe agrees to lead the witness to use neutral terms like 'females' or 'people' to avoid unfounded implications of age.
DOJ-OGR-00017799.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the redirect examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecutor questions Jane to establish that the government did not coach her testimony, instructing her only to 'tell the truth.' The testimony also clarifies that Jane's prior meetings with the FBI and government covered different aspects of her relationship with Maxwell and Epstein at different times, rather than covering every detail in every single meeting.
DOJ-OGR-00017792.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal cross-examination dated August 10, 2022, involving a witness identified as Jane. The questioning focuses on Jane's past interactions, specifically her meetings with Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes, including at his 80th birthday party, and a meeting where Epstein was also present. Jane also confirms having met with 'the government' and discussed her meeting with Mike Wallace.
DOJ-OGR-00017791.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on establishing Jane's exact age (13 vs 14) when she first met Jeffrey Epstein, referencing prior statements made to the government and court filings.
DOJ-OGR-00017774.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar or legal argument between the Judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger regarding the specific wording of a cross-examination question for a witness identified as 'Jane.' The discussion focuses on whether the witness believed her testimony would aid her in civil litigation or the 'victims' comp fund.'
DOJ-OGR-00017768.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a sidebar or legal argument regarding witness 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues that the witness may be motivated to testify in the criminal trial to increase a financial payout in a separate civil case. The Judge ('The Court') expresses concern that questioning the witness about communications with her lawyer regarding this strategy would violate attorney-client privilege and rules to limit the scope of questioning on 401/403 grounds.
DOJ-OGR-00017767.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the Judge, Ms. Moe (Defense), and Ms. Menninger (Government) regarding the scope of cross-examination for a witness named 'Jane.' The discussion centers on whether the defense can ask if Jane is aware that her attorney told the government about her expectations for financial compensation in civil litigation, and whether such questions violate attorney-client privilege or are relevant to her credibility and bias.
DOJ-OGR-00017766.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane.' Ms. Menninger attempts to question Jane about her knowledge of statements her lawyer made to the government regarding how her testimony might impact civil litigation. Ms. Moe (Jane's counsel) objects, arguing that this line of questioning is an attempt to bypass attorney-client privilege and does not constitute valid impeachment.
DOJ-OGR-00017762.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal debate during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues that attorney-client privilege was waived because a communication was shared with the government. In response, attorney Ms. Moe suggests questioning the witness about her motives and potential bias related to a civil case, as a way to proceed without directly challenging the privileged communication.
DOJ-OGR-00017761.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, requests permission from the judge to question a witness about communications she may have had with her own attorney regarding cooperation with the government and testifying at the trial. The judge clarifies the precise wording of the question to be posed to the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017742.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on establishing that Jane hired two personal injury lawyers, Mr. Glassman and Mr. Werksman, on September 3, 2019, just two weeks before her first meeting with the government. Jane confirms she hired them based on advice from her husband's friend, rather than seeking a specialist in victims' rights.
DOJ-OGR-00017740.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on events in 2019, establishing that Jane was contacted by the media and an Agent Amanda Young before Epstein's arrest. The transcript reveals Jane was initially uninterested in getting involved but later hired a new attorney, Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00017739.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The witness denies having $1 million or agreeing to a $250,000 retainer, stating she cannot afford such amounts. However, she confirms paying $25,000 to an unspecified individual to help stop media harassment and bullying regarding interview requests, and acknowledges speaking with lawyers representing Virginia Roberts.
DOJ-OGR-00017738.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on Jane hiring a 'tough litigator' around 2015 to counter press allegations that she was a 'Yugoslavian sex slave'. The examination probes into payments made to this lawyer, specifically questioning a 'quarter of a million dollars' amount which Jane denies in this testimony, and confirms she spoke with the government on September 2, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017734.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal cross-examination, filed on August 10, 2022, involving a witness identified as 'Jane.' The questioning focuses on her interactions with 'the government' regarding trial preparation and a mock cross-examination, as well as her travel with 'Mr. Epstein' on his private jet after 1999. Jane confirms meetings and preparation with the government but denies continuous travel with Epstein after 1999, admitting to only one flight on his private jet.
DOJ-OGR-00017727.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) depicting a sidebar conference during the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. Prosecutor Ms. Moe objects to defense questions regarding investigative techniques (specifically showing photographs), citing a previously granted motion in limine. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger attempts to complain about the excessive number of objections, but the Court dismisses the concern, stating the record is clear.
DOJ-OGR-00017722.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on Jane's previous testimony about her participation in recurring 'group sexualized massages' and her specific recollection of another participant, a massage therapist named Sophie. The questioner probes Jane's memory of Sophie's profession and physical attributes.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity