your Honor
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Sophia Papapetru
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Speaker (implied lawyer)
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. DONALESKI
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. FIGGINS
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
unnamed attorney
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Weinberg
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unidentified speaker (attorney)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Anonymous Juror
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unidentified speaker
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Joe Ficalora and Thomas Cangemi
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Chauntae Davies
|
Witness judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00017650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning challenges the witness's testimony by highlighting inconsistencies between her current account and a prior statement she gave to the government on September 19, 2019, concerning an encounter with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein and a discussion about scholarships. The witness suggests that any discrepancies may be due to transcription errors by the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00017621.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Moe, regarding a witness's testimony. The discussion centers on clarifying the witness's past residences in Palm Beach as a teenager, specifically distinguishing between a 'first address' identified as a pool house and a 'second address'.
DOJ-OGR-00017615.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, is arguing a procedural point to the judge about the defense's ability to introduce its own evidence through a witness called by the government. He provides two examples: a real one involving FedEx records and a hypothetical one involving a witness named Larry Visoski who recently testified about pictures of Little St. James Island.
DOJ-OGR-00014976.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated January 15, 2025. In it, an attorney named Mr. Pagliuca requests the time records of a witness, Rocchio, to establish potential financial motive and bias related to a contract. The judge questions the legal basis for this request, prompting Mr. Pagliuca to argue his entitlement under the legal precedents of Brady and Giglio.
DOJ-OGR-00014882.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated January 15, 2025. Counsel discusses logistical matters, including receiving permission for Mr. Pagliuca to miss a final pretrial conference due to a hearing in Colorado. The court then moves to a Daubert hearing concerning the government's proposed expert, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, whose name pronunciation is clarified for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00014845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, regarding her client Ms. Maxwell's sentence. Ms. Sternheim argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized,' but the Court counters that other assets exist and proceeds to formally impose the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00014811.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding. The court confirms a previously established anonymity order for a witness using the pseudonym "Kate," specifically instructing sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness. Kate then begins her victim impact statement, expressing fear for her daughter's safety in the context of eroding women's rights and referencing a collective effort to bring a "common enemy" to justice.
DOJ-OGR-00014805.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed on August 22, 2022, likely from a prosecutor's statement during the sentencing of a defendant named Maxwell. The speaker argues that Maxwell was Jeffrey Epstein's 'right hand' and a willing 'partner in crime,' who took millions from him to fund a luxurious lifestyle while they molested children together. The statement highlights Maxwell's disturbing worldview, the lasting trauma inflicted on her victims, and her complete lack of remorse.
DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 22, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the commentary on a sentencing guideline for 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal, choosing to rest on her previously filed written arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00014769.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It captures a legal argument between the judge ('THE COURT') and a government attorney ('MS. MOE') about the end date of a criminal conspiracy. The judge challenges the government's use of evidence from late 2004 and 2005, arguing it constitutes inadmissible 'post conspiracy' evidence because the conspiracy was legally dependent on a person named Carolyn being under the age of 18.
DOJ-OGR-00014767.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court transcript (Document 779) filed on August 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text records a defense attorney arguing that determining when offense conduct ended is a matter for the jury, specifically to avoid Ex Post Facto violations regarding sentencing guidelines. The speaker cites the 'Tykarsky' opinion and distinguishes the current situation from 'Apprendi' case law.
DOJ-OGR-00008416.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 17, 2021, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of evidence in a sex trafficking case. The prosecution argues that the defense cannot introduce potentially exculpatory hearsay statements through law enforcement agents and must call the original witnesses. Defense counsel, Ms. Menninger, counters that the absence of an implicating statement is not hearsay, a point which the judge appears to challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00008413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing dated December 17, 2021, in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, is arguing that the defense should be precluded from introducing statements from other alleged victims unless they first formally proffer which witnesses they intend to call. The government contends this is necessary to prevent the introduction of inappropriate hearsay evidence during opening statements or cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008346.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a legal discussion between the court and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the definition of 'illegal sexual activity' in an indictment involving Mr. Epstein. The conversation centers on whether events in New Mexico constitute a crime under the Mann Act and how they relate to proving intent for illegal activity in New York, particularly concerning conspiracy charges against 'minor Victim 2'.
DOJ-OGR-00008340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a legal discussion between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, concerning the precise wording of jury instructions. They specifically debate whether the defendant, Mr. Epstein, could be convicted 'solely' based on a witness's testimony, with both agreeing that such an instruction would be an incorrect statement of law and potentially a reversible error.
DOJ-OGR-00008324.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a dialogue between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concerning the practical methods for presenting documentary evidence during a trial. The judge suggests preparing a binder of potential exhibits, while the attorney expresses concern, leading to a discussion about the role of a paralegal in displaying documents on a monitor during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00001923.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An attorney argues during a bail hearing, dismissing the government's evidence concerning a threat from a 'Ms. Moe' as irrelevant 'spin' not connected to their client, 'Ms. Maxwell'. The attorney then pivots to the legal standard for pretrial release, quoting statute 3142 to argue for release under the least restrictive conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00001890.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. A representative for the government informs the judge that they are prepared for discovery and have collaborated with defense counsel on a proposed schedule for the trial. The government representative emphasizes their commitment to a thorough review of materials, including an ongoing privilege review of electronic data, and mentions the bulk of materials will be produced by the end of summer. The judge then begins to question the representative about issues with complete disclosure seen in other cases.
DOJ-OGR-00001413.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the government misrepresented the nature of its treatment of inmate Ms. Maxwell. The filing claims the government initially told the court that flashlight checks every 15 minutes were a routine procedure by the Bureau of Prisons, but later admitted in a letter that these checks were targeted only at Ms. Maxwell. The document asserts this special treatment is unjustified and an attempt by the government to mislead the court.
DOJ-OGR-00001354.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 9, 2021, is a request from Sophia Papapetru, a Staff Attorney for the Federal Bureau of Prisons at MDC Brooklyn. She asks the presiding judge ('Your Honor') to vacate a previous order from January 15, 2021, and permit the institution to revert to its former laptop access schedule of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays.
DOJ-OGR-00001078.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (part of an appellate filing for Case 21-770) where a government prosecutor argues against bail for a female defendant (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell). The prosecutor asserts that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) does not bind the current office or shield the defendant. Arguments for detention include the defendant's extensive international ties, unknown finances, and lack of candor regarding resources.
DOJ-OGR-00001076.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues against the notion that the defendant would have surrendered if asked. The speaker asserts the government arrested the defendant due to a serious flight risk and points to the defense counsel's uncooperative behavior in a separate civil case as further evidence of untrustworthiness. The speaker concludes by noting the lack of a substantive response regarding the defendant's finances.
DOJ-OGR-00001074.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, is making a concluding argument to a judge to grant bail for his client. He argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proving the client is a flight risk, distinguishing the current case from others and citing a precedent from Judge Raggi in the Sabhnani case before formally requesting the court to grant bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001072.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021. A defense attorney is arguing for the release of their client (inferred to be Ghislaine Maxwell) on the grounds that reviewing voluminous electronic discovery for 'conduct that's alleged to be 25 years old' is impossible while the client is in custody during the pandemic. The attorney notes the client is in 'administrative seg.' (segregation) because authorities are 'afraid of what happened with Mr. Epstein' (referencing his death in custody).
DOJ-OGR-00001066.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770, dated April 1, 2021) where a defense attorney argues against the detention of their client. The attorney asserts that transferring funds after being dropped by a bank and filing required disclosures (SDAR) with the Treasury Department in 2018 and 2019 regarding a foreign bank account are acts of compliance, not evidence of hiding assets or intent to evade. The defense also begins to cite Judge Raggi's opinion in the Sabhnani case regarding physical restraint.
Scope of witness testimony and disclosures
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.
Ambiguity of evidence regarding flights
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.
Acknowledgment of ruling
Mr. Pagliuca thanks the judge after the ruling is made.
Admissibility of photographic evidence
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.
Witness Logistics
Discussing arrangements for Jane to travel home and potential recall needs.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity