| 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 |
This document is a page from a court transcript dated September 3, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A representative for the government is addressing the court, stating that despite the dismissal of the indictment, related investigations and the possibility of civil asset forfeiture will continue. The speaker also confirms that defense counsel is complying with a protective order to return discovery materials and reaffirms the government's commitment to the victims of the case.
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 6, 2019. In it, a representative for the government, Ms. Moe, proposes a detailed schedule to the court for the defense to file discovery-related and pretrial motions, with corresponding deadlines for the government's responses. Ms. Moe concludes by requesting that the court schedule a trial for June of the following year.
This document is a page from a court transcript where a speaker, likely Mr. Epstein's lawyer, argues that Epstein is not a flight risk. The lawyer contests the government's interpretation of payments Epstein made to witnesses in late 2018, arguing that Epstein's subsequent travel into the country, where he was arrested, demonstrates he did not intend to flee. The lawyer also introduces Mr. Joseph Jaffe, who is present to discuss services his company could provide as part of a potential release condition for Epstein.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from a case in the Southern District. A speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues against granting bail to a defendant, claiming he is a flight risk due to a lengthy, covert government investigation and his recent indictment. The judge ('THE COURT') questions the speaker about a recent submission that mentioned victims or their counsel oppose the defendant's release and asks if any of them wish to be heard.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, in a case involving Mr. Epstein. An unidentified speaker, likely the prosecutor, argues against the credibility of the defense's claims, particularly the idea that Epstein has disciplined himself. The speaker contends that this claim is an admission of his "appetite for children" and that the court should not risk community safety based on it, also referencing articles by the Miami Herald about Epstein's past misconduct.
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on July 24, 2019, in the case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. An unidentified speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues against the defense's interpretation of a federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the definition of the crime, emphasizing that the case involves sex trafficking of underage girls, which makes the defense's arguments about consent legally irrelevant and offensive.
This document is page 62 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, appearing to be a bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). A prosecutor argues against the defendant's request for home detention, describing it as a 'gilded cage' and 'private jail' that necessitates actual detention. The prosecutor also clarifies that the SDNY case was independently investigated by the FBI, CBP, and NYPD, explicitly stating there was no coordination with the Southern District of Florida regarding the initiation of this specific case.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, concerning bail conditions for Mr. Epstein. His attorney, Mr. Weinberg, argues that Epstein is not a flight risk, contrasting him with another defendant who lied to pretrial services. Weinberg proposes an additional condition of a credible trustee living in Epstein's home to ensure compliance, in an attempt to persuade the judge to reconsider the detention order.
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where an attorney argues against an allegation that Mr. Epstein authorized an investigator to drive someone off the road. The speaker contends there is no proof of this authorization and that other attorneys involved, Mr. Goldberger and Roy Black, were never questioned about the incident and do not know the investigator. The argument is made to a judge ("Your Honor") and references a prior investigation in Florida.
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney argues that their client, Mr. Epstein, is not a flight risk. The attorney cites past actions as evidence, including not fleeing before his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), hiring lawyers, and serving time in county jail, from which he was released in 2010. The document also mentions a past legal dispute in New York regarding Mr. Epstein's classification.
This document is page 15 of a transcript from a bail hearing filed on July 24, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). The prosecutor argues that the defendant's financial disclosure is insufficient, unsworn, and fails to list accounts, currencies, or high-value assets like diamonds and art found during the search of his Manhattan mansion. The government further argues that the Manhattan mansion cannot be used as security for a bond because the government has already designated it for seizure.
This legal document is a transcript from a court proceeding where the prosecution argues for the detention of a defendant, citing them as a significant flight risk due to vast financial assets, including a net worth over $500 million and a single bank account with over $110 million. The prosecution also states that the evidence against the defendant is already "strong" and is growing stronger daily as more victims and witnesses come forward following a months-long covert investigation.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. A prosecutor is arguing to a judge that the defendant should be detained, citing evidence of witness tampering through payments to associates, and highlighting that the defendant is an 'extraordinary flight risk' due to his immense wealth (over $500 million), six homes, two private islands, and a residence in France.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, detailing a bail hearing. The prosecution, represented by Mr. Rossmiller, argues that the defendant should be detained, citing the defense's failure to provide detailed financial information and the legal presumption of detention for sex trafficking charges, which is strengthened by the defendant's prior sex offense conviction. The judge interacts with the prosecutor to clarify the government's burden of proof in the matter.
This document is a court transcript from July 16, 2019, where an attorney, Mr. Weingarten, provides context to the court about a prior investigation into Mr. Epstein. He describes a three-year investigation that began in Florida in 2005, involving both local and federal law enforcement, concerning allegations of prostitution. Mr. Weingarten claims that a significant portion of local law enforcement viewed the case as simple prostitution without coercion, while federal authorities held a 'contrary view,' leading to complex negotiations.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) dated July 16, 2019, in which the government argues that the defendant (Jeffrey Epstein) poses a significant flight risk. The prosecutor highlights that new victims have come forward post-charge, the defendant faces life in prison, and possesses vast wealth including six residences (one abroad). The government emphasizes they kept the investigation covert specifically to prevent the defendant from fleeing.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 16, 2019, in which a government prosecutor argues for the pretrial detention of a defendant charged with sex trafficking. The prosecutor emphasizes the seriousness of the alleged crimes, which involve years of sexual abuse of dozens of minors in multiple locations. The argument is supported by claims of strong evidence, including credible and corroborated information from victims, witnesses, and a recent search of the defendant's Manhattan mansion.
This legal document, part of a court filing dated July 16, 2019, details allegations from an indictment against a defendant for sexual abuse of underage girls. The crimes allegedly occurred at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida, and involved facilitation by employees and associates. The document argues that the defendant, being 'extraordinarily wealthy' with multiple international residences and two private jets, is a significant flight risk.
This document is page 15 of a transcript from a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing for Mr. Epstein, filed on July 15, 2019. An unidentified speaker argues against the state's determination regarding Epstein's registration, while the court upholds a board's recommendation of 130 points and notes the right to appeal. The page concludes with a certification of accuracy from the Senior Court Reporter, Vikki J. Benkel.
This document is a page from a court transcript of a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing dated July 15, 2019. An unnamed speaker, likely counsel for Mr. Epstein, argues that a prior case in Palm Beach, Florida was not prosecuted because the lead prosecutor found the complainants and the police report to be not credible. The speaker further claims that in subsequent civil litigation, the complainants provided sworn testimony disclaiming much of what was in the police report.
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) dated July 11, 2019, arguing for Jeffrey Epstein's pretrial release. Defense counsel argues that home confinement with 24-hour private armed guards—paid for by Epstein—is the 'least restrictive' condition to assure his appearance, citing precedents like Bernie Madoff and Marc Dreier. The filing addresses the Judge's potential concerns about wealthy defendants 'buying their way out' of jail, arguing that denying this option based on wealth raises equal protection concerns.
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding. The judge (THE COURT) informs a party of their appellate rights, discusses issuing a post-trial order, and establishes July 2004 as the official end date for a criminal conspiracy. Counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, acknowledge the court's statements and indicate they have no objections, though Ms. Moe reserves the right to submit a letter if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
This court transcript excerpt discusses the roles and relationships of individuals involved in a scheme, specifically focusing on the defendant's leadership over Sarah Kellen and their shared association with Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell. It highlights evidence from flight records showing the defendant and Sarah Kellen traveling on Epstein's private jet, indicating an overlap in their involvement as close associates in an ongoing scheme. The discussion also touches upon legal arguments regarding the supervision of criminal participants.
This document is a transcript (pages 19-20) from Case 22-1426 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), dated February 28, 2023. It records the questioning of a witness (likely a juror) regarding their completion of a 'thick' jury questionnaire. The witness admits to 'skimming' and 'flying through' questions based on 'if yes' prompts, stating they were distracted and that the process felt like it took hours.
This document is a transcript of a voir dire or deposition from February 28, 2023, where an attorney questions a potential juror about an inaccurate answer on their questionnaire. The juror admits to mistakenly checking 'no' when asked if a family member had ever been accused of a crime, explaining that their stepbrother had been. The juror attributes the error to being distracted, unfocused due to a recent breakup, and skimming the form too quickly, calling it an 'inadvertent mistake' and 'one of the biggest mistakes' of their life.
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.
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.
Mr. Pagliuca thanks the judge after the ruling is made.
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.
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