SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LocationRelationship Network
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-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-00017795.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane' by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on Jane's recollection of interrogatories and answers given under oath in a previous civil case filed in June 2020. The witness denies recalling answering questions under oath or knowing what her lawyer wrote, but acknowledges filing the lawsuit.
DOJ-OGR-00017788.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on Jane's 20-plus year career as a soap opera actress, specifically listing dramatic plot lines her character has experienced, such as battling cancer, being bullied, and being stalked by serial killers. The line of questioning appears aimed at establishing the witness's familiarity with dramatic or fabricated narratives.
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-00017689.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) involving a sidebar discussion between the defense (Ms. Menninger), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Judge. The defense argues for the right to cross-examine a witness named 'Jane' regarding her participation in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program to show bias or financial motivation. Specifically, the defense highlights that Jane was offered $5 million but her lawyer rejected it, filing a motion for reconsideration to demand an 'eight-figure settlement' (at least $10 million).
DOJ-OGR-00017688.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural argument between attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe before the Court regarding the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane.' The dispute centers on whether a letter written by Jane's civil attorney can be used to refresh her recollection without introducing hearsay into the record.
DOJ-OGR-00017676.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger. The defense attorney questions the consistency of Jane's memory regarding her first encounter with Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting she fabricated a memory recently that she did not possess in December 2019. The dialogue also references a meeting between Jane and the government in February 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00017670.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural interruption during the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' regarding a missing exhibit in the jurors' binders. The page concludes with Ms. Menninger resuming questioning about a past event where the witness went to the movies with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017644.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning, likely led by defense attorney Ms. Menninger, focuses on an application (Exhibit J-5) Jane submitted to the Interlochen Arts Camp. Specifically, the defense establishes that Jane checked 'no' on the application regarding whether she was applying for financial aid or expecting any outside funds, scholarships, or grants for her attendance.
DOJ-OGR-00017633.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on establishing Jane's age (16) during a specific summer and reviewing Exhibit J-3, which is identified as an application where Jane answered a question regarding scholarship or financial aid.
DOJ-OGR-00017630.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger) and the Court regarding the admissibility of internet materials, specifically Wikipedia pages and tabloid articles, as evidence before a jury. Ms. Menninger argues she is providing materials in advance to expedite proceedings, while Ms. Moe objects to their nature.
DOJ-OGR-00017626.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding whether to discuss certain topics at a sidebar or to confer with a witness's attorney first. The Judge instructs the counsel to confer with the witness's attorney before bringing the matters to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place without the jury present, where the Judge discusses procedural issues involving Rule 16/608 regarding impeachment evidence and the protection of witness identities via pseudonyms. The legal teams (Menninger/Everdell for defense, Comey/Rohrbach for prosecution) determine who will argue the specific legal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00017610.jpg
This document is the first page of a court record for the jury trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the appearances for the trial held on December 1, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, listing the presiding judge, legal teams for both the prosecution and defense, and other law enforcement and paralegal personnel present.
DOJ-OGR-00015133.jpg
This is an Opinion & Order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated August 11, 2025, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denies the government's motion to unseal grand jury transcripts from Maxwell's case. The document provides background, referencing Maxwell's December 2021 conviction for sexual abuse committed with Jeffrey Epstein and the 2019 indictment and arrest of Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00015130.jpg
Court order from the Southern District of New York (Case 20-CR-330) signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. The order grants the motion for attorneys Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and Laura A. Menninger of Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. to withdraw as co-counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The document is dated August 7, 2025.
DOJ-OGR-00015127.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 6, 2025. The order publicly dockets an additional letter submitted on behalf of a victim regarding the government's request to unseal Maxwell's grand jury materials. The Court notes that no redactions are needed to protect victim privacy interests.
DOJ-OGR-00015126.jpg
This document is a proposed court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on August 6, 2025, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order, to be signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, grants the motion for attorneys Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and Laura A. Menninger of the law firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. to withdraw as co-counsel for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00015123.jpg
This document is a Notice of Motion filed on August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 20 Cr. 330). Attorneys Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and Laura A. Menninger of the firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. are formally requesting a court order to withdraw as co-counsel for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00015099.jpg
This is the signature page (labeled Page 2 of 2, though part of a larger PDF marked Page 4 of 27) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It is dated August 6, 2025, and is respectfully submitted to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer by Jay Clayton, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00015099.
DOJ-OGR-00015098.jpg
This document is a letter dated August 6, 2025, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter serves as a cover sheet for five enclosed submissions from various counsel (John Scarola, Sigrid McCawley, Bradley Edwards, and Neil S. Binder). The Government outlines the filing status of each submission, indicating whether it can be filed publicly without redactions, with redactions, or under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00015094.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing submitted on August 5, 2025, by the defense firm Markus/Moss in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's motion to unseal grand jury transcripts, distinguishing Maxwell's case from *In re Biaggi* and rejecting a Florida public records case as irrelevant to federal Rule 6(e) protections. The defense concludes that there is no precedent for unsealing such transcripts in an ongoing matter and requests the motion be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00015087.jpg
This legal document is a response filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defense opposes the government's motion to unseal grand jury transcripts, arguing that since Maxwell is alive and actively litigating her case (which is pending before the Supreme Court), releasing the transcripts would violate her due process rights. The defense also claims they cannot take an informed position as the Court has denied their request to review the materials themselves.
DOJ-OGR-00015085.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in the case of U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order grants the Government's request to file supplemental submissions and sets a deadline of August 8, 2025. By this date, the Government must respond to submissions from victims and the defendant, and also clarify whether its motion to unseal grand jury materials includes exhibits in addition to transcripts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity