your Honor

Person

Mentions

807

Relationships

Events

Documents

389

Relationship Network

Network Depth

Loading... nodes

Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.

22 total relationships

Sort by:

Connected Entity	Relationship Type	Strength (mentions)	Documents	Actions
person Ms. Moe	Professional	10 Very Strong	7	View
person MS. MENNINGER	Professional	10 Very Strong	6	View
person Mr. Everdell	Professional	9 Strong	5	View
person Ms. Comey	Professional	9 Strong	4	View
person MR. PAGLIUCA	Professional	8 Strong	3	View
person MR. COHEN	Professional	7	2	View
person Sophia Papapetru	Professional	6	2	View
person MR. ROHRBACH	Professional	6	1	View
person Speaker (implied lawyer)	Legal representative	6	1	View
person MR. PAGLIUCA	Legal representative	6	1	View
person MS. DONALESKI	Professional	6	1	View
person MR. FIGGINS	Professional	6	1	View
person MS. POMERANTZ	Professional	6	2	View
person unnamed attorney	Professional	6	1	View
person Unnamed witness	Professional	5	1	View
person Mr. Weinberg	Professional	5	1	View
person Unidentified speaker (attorney)	Legal representative	5	1	View
person Anonymous Juror	Professional	5	1	View
person unidentified speaker	Professional	5	1	View
person Joe Ficalora and Thomas Cangemi	Legal representative	5	1	View
person Chauntae Davies	Witness judge	5	1	View
person Unnamed speaker	Professional	5	1	View

Date	Event Type	Description	Location	Actions
N/A	Legal proceeding	A court hearing regarding the defendant's potential release on bail.	the Southern District	View
N/A	Court testimony	Witness Kate is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz about a visit to Maxwell's house and is shown Governm...	Courtroom	View
N/A	Legal argument	A speaker in court argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's actions regarding Jane's travel do not constit...	Courtroom	View
N/A	Legal proceeding	Oral argument during which the government was asked about the routine nature of shining lights in...	Court	View
N/A	Legal action	The dismissal of the indictment in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB is discussed.	court	View
N/A	Trial	A long trial is mentioned as the context for the events, possibly explaining the exhaustion of th...	Court	View
N/A	Summation	Ms. Menninger delivers a summation to the judge and jury, questioning the prosecution's narrative...	Courtroom	View
N/A	Trial	A trial is being discussed where testimony and exhibits, such as a photograph and flight logs, ar...	Court	View
N/A	Court proceeding	A speaker is addressing a judge, arguing about the significance of threats received by their clie...	court	View
N/A	Court hearing	Ms. Moe presents the government's case, asserting that the facts of the defendant's conduct, incl...	this court	View
N/A	Court hearing	Redirect examination of Ms. Brune by Mr. Davis, during which Government Exhibit 28 (a letter from...	The Court	View
N/A	Legal objection	A speaker objects to the admission of photographs taken in 2019 as evidence, arguing they are irr...	Courtroom	View
N/A	Testimony	Ms. Brune is giving testimony under direct examination.	Courtroom	View
N/A	Court hearing/litigation	A lawyer is presenting arguments to a judge regarding a client's case, discussing past conduct (1...	Court (implied by 'THE COUR...	View
N/A	Trial	A summation is being given in a trial, arguing that accusers' memories have shifted over time.	Courtroom	View
N/A	Trial	A long trial is mentioned as the context for the events being discussed.	Court	View
2023-06-29	Sentencing hearing	A government representative makes an argument to a judge for imposing an above-guideline sentence...	Courtroom	View
2022-08-10	Court testimony	Mr. Visoski provides testimony during a direct examination by Ms. Comey, describing the layout of...	Courtroom	View
2022-08-10	Court testimony	Direct examination of witness Shawn by Ms. Comey, with an objection from Mr. Pagliuca.	Court of the Southern District	View
2022-08-10	Court hearing	A legal argument concerning the admissibility of undated photographs as evidence in a criminal case.	Courtroom	View
2022-08-10	Sidebar discussion	Attorneys Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Comey discuss with the judge whether Amanda can be...	Courtroom	View
2022-08-10	Court proceeding	Cross-examination of witness Mr. Visoski in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.	Courtroom (implied)	View
2022-08-10	Court testimony	Direct examination of witness Dr. Dubin regarding identification of individuals in Government Exh...	Courtroom (implied)	View
2022-08-10	Legal proceeding	A sidebar conversation during a trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) regarding the admissibility of evi...	Courtroom	View
2022-08-10	Court testimony	Direct examination of Special Agent Maguire regarding a search and the introduction of Government...	Courtroom	View

DOJ-OGR-00017562.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named "Jane." An attorney, Ms. Moe, questions Jane about whether her mother was aware that she was spending time with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as a teenager. Jane confirms her mother knew and was "enamored" by the idea, though they did not discuss it in detail. The transcript also includes a hearsay objection by another attorney, Ms. Menninger, which is overruled by the court.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017561.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Jane. Jane describes her difficult home life in Florida between the ages of 14 and 17, following the sudden death of her father. She testifies that her family lost their home and that her mother, who was depressed and concerned with appearances, did not allow the children to grieve or discuss their feelings, which Jane found 'really difficult'.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017549.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named 'Jane' by an attorney, 'Ms. Moe'. Jane testifies that 'Maxwell' (Ghislaine Maxwell) was present during unspecified incidents that occurred when Jane was 14 and 16 years old. Jane also confirms that she began traveling with both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the age of 14.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017522.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Ms. Moe, questions a witness named Jane, who testifies that she met Jeffrey Epstein in 1994. Jane further states that she first had sexual contact with Epstein when she was fourteen years old and that it occurred more than once at that age.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017487.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. The witness clarifies that Ghislaine's New York residence was at 116 East 65th Street and confirms that from 1991 through the 2000s, Ghislaine maintained a residence separate from Jeffrey Epstein's. The witness also states they would pick up luggage for both Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein, but from their respective residences.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017459.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a brief exchange between Mr. Everdell and the court during the cross-examination of a person named Visoski, where the court announces its intention to bring in the jury.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011674.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. Government counsel, Ms. Moe, raises a concern about the defense's plan to show documents to a witness on a screen that the government cannot see, making it difficult to follow. The judge (The Court) proposes a solution where the defense can use the screen as long as they verbally describe their actions, and offers the same allowance for the government to use paper documents if projection is not possible.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011672.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Moe, representing the government, requests the opportunity to review binders of documents before they are presented to a witness or the jury. The Court affirms that the government and the Court must see any document before it is shown, clarifying the procedure for using such materials in the trial.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011670.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell about trial logistics, specifically the seating of legal teams to ensure proper distancing and the methodology for presenting evidence to witnesses and jurors. Mr. Everdell explains they have prepared physical binders for witnesses but still hope to use electronic methods.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011636.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The judge instructs Mr. Pagliuca on the preferred procedure for presenting documents during cross-examination, emphasizing the use of pre-organized, tabbed paper binders for efficiency. The judge also provides for exceptions, allowing for documents not in the binder to be presented either as paper copies or on a screen.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011583.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a portion of a court proceeding where a witness, identified only as 'Kate' due to an anonymity order, begins to deliver her victim impact statement. Before she speaks, Ms. Moe confirms the protective order with the court, which is affirmed, and Kate then starts her emotional testimony about fearing for her child's safety and fighting for justice against a 'common enemy'.

Court transcript

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript / legal filing

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011548.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on July 22, 2022, detailing a legal argument between a government representative, Ms. Moe, and the Court. The discussion focuses on establishing the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, as an 'organizer or leader' for sentencing purposes by proving she exercised a supervisory role over at least one other criminally responsible participant. The government specifically identifies Sarah Kellen as the individual supervised by Ms. Maxwell, based on evidence from the trial.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011529.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022. In it, the judge makes findings of fact, stating it is probable the defendant paid Carolyn and Virginia for bringing and recruiting other girls. The judge then overrules two objections: one regarding the inclusion of a person named Kate, and another concerning the characterization of the defendant having groomed a person named Jane.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

Total Received

$0.00

0 transactions

Total Paid

$0.00

0 transactions

Net Flow

$0.00

0 total transactions

No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

As Sender

As Recipient

Total

Scope of witness testimony and disclosures

From: Unidentified speaker (...

To: your Honor

An attorney addresses the judge to clarify the acceptable scope of testimony for a witness, Mr. Flatley. The attorney objects to potential expert opinion testimony regarding metadata verification mentioned in a November 26 disclosure but is agreeable if the testimony is limited to factual matters from an earlier September disclosure.

Courtroom statement

2022-08-10

Communication Source

Ambiguity of evidence regarding flights

From: Ms. Moe

To: your Honor

MS. MOE responds to the previous speaker, stating that a note being discussed is unclear about which flight it refers to (a return flight vs. a flight to New Mexico), making it difficult to determine intent.

Courtroom dialogue

2022-08-10

Communication Source

Acknowledgment of ruling

From: MR. PAGLIUCA

To: your Honor

Mr. Pagliuca thanks the judge after the ruling is made.

Court testimony

2022-08-10

Communication Source

Admissibility of photographic evidence

From: MS. MENNINGER

To: your Honor

Ms. Menninger argues that photographs require a witness for authentication to be admissible, especially if they are undated, to establish context and verify they haven't been altered.

Courtroom dialogue

2022-08-10

Communication Source