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-00016909.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The transcript captures the conclusion of the government's case, as confirmed by Ms. Comey, and the subsequent colloquy between the judge and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge formally advises Ms. Maxwell of her right to testify or not to testify, stressing that the decision is hers alone, despite any advice from her attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00016904.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning Jeffrey Epstein's lease violations and residency at a specific property in late 1995 and early 1996. She references a witness hired in December 1995 who confirmed Epstein was not living at the property for the first three weeks of his employment.
DOJ-OGR-00016899.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. A lawyer is arguing for judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 regarding a fact established in a previous case: that Jeffrey Epstein vacated his East 69th Street residence in January 1996 and leased it to a Mr. Fisher. The text references specific docket entries (15, 45, 46) and an opinion by Judge Chin from that prior litigation to establish the timeline of Epstein's residence.
DOJ-OGR-00016892.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. Mr. Everdell discusses his intent to use newly acquired property records for Stanhope Mews to impeach a witness's deposition testimony about their residence. He argues that despite the government's objection, further factual development, and possibly an additional witness, is necessary to counter the government's claims.
DOJ-OGR-00016884.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between counsel and the judge regarding the need to establish a person's residency at 44 Kinnerton. Counsel mentions a potential new witness, Mr. Moran, and the judge rules that property ownership documents are admissible as evidence to argue the inference of residency.
DOJ-OGR-00016883.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a dispute between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the late disclosure of a witness. The defense introduces Kevin Moran, the owner of the Nags Head Pub located across the street from Ms. Maxwell's residence at 44 Kinnerton Street, as a witness regarding the timing of her residence there. The prosecution objects, citing a lack of prior notice and missing '26.2 material' (witness statements).
DOJ-OGR-00016858.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin, filed on August 10, 2022. An attorney's question about conversations between Dr. Dubin and Ghislaine Maxwell regarding Jeffrey Epstein is successfully objected to by Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning then shifts to Dr. Dubin's memory, with the witness admitting it is 'very hard to remember anything far back'.
DOJ-OGR-00016374.jpg
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Farmer about potential inconsistencies in her statements to the government and her mother regarding an alleged sexual assault, specifically about feeling an erect penis and whether she said she was "not raped". Another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, repeatedly objects to the line of questioning, and the court sustains the objections.
DOJ-OGR-00016358.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 features the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer regarding a pair of boots purchased for her by Jeffrey Epstein. The questioning focuses on the wear and tear of the boots, specifically that the witness wore them 'two-stepping' (dancing) after 2006, and whether she had disclosed this usage to the government prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00016337.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer, by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on a trip the witness took to New Mexico, where they encountered a person named Ghislaine, and probes inconsistencies in the witness's memory regarding the date of a meeting with the FBI, which they recall as being in either 2006 or 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00016315.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal cross-examination dated August 10, 2022, involving Ms. Menninger questioning A. Farmer. The testimony focuses on entries made by Farmer after returning from New York, specifically confirming details about attending 'Phantom of the Opera', visiting Mr. Epstein's home, meeting Maria's boyfriend, and going cross-country skiing during a trip. Ms. Pomerantz also addresses 'Your Honor' during the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00016304.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer. The questioning focuses on a trip Farmer took to Mr. Epstein's New York home for a New Year's party after Christmas 1995. Farmer confirms that no sexual activity occurred and no one physically touched them during the visit, and also discusses the possibility that the home was under renovation at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00016289.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness, A. Farmer. The witness confirms that their prior civil lawsuit against Maxwell and Epstein is concluded, having received a settlement from a fund in exchange for dismissing the case. Farmer also testifies that they have no financial stake in the outcome of the current trial.
DOJ-OGR-00016282.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys (Ms. Pomerantz, Ms. Menninger, Ms. Sternheim) and the judge. The core issue is the admissibility of a witness's prior statement, specifically the use of the word 'rape', with one side arguing it is highly prejudicial and the judge ultimately overruling the objection. The discussion highlights the strategic use of witness statements and the legal standards for evidence in a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00016257.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named A. Farmer (also called Annie). The witness states she spoke with Jeffrey Epstein by phone two or three times and saw him in person in New Mexico in April 1996. A photograph of the witness from the spring of 1996, showing her getting ready for prom, is identified and admitted into evidence as Government Exhibit 102.
DOJ-OGR-00016252.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, questions a witness named Annie Farmer, who reads aloud an entry she wrote on January 7, 1996. The entry details her feelings after a significant trip to New York, expressing a sense of depression upon returning home, feeling isolated from friends, and being eager to start college.
DOJ-OGR-00016115.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the court and lawyers Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell. The conversation focuses on courtroom logistics, such as arranging lawyers in a 'backup team' for social distancing, and the mechanics of presenting evidence, including physical binders for witnesses and folders for jurors, alongside a request to use electronic evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002343.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 8, 2021, is a request from Sophia Papapetru, a Staff Attorney for the Federal Bureau of Prisons at MDC Brooklyn. The filing asks a judge ('Your Honor') to vacate a previous court order from January 15, 2021, and permit the institution to revert to its former schedule for laptop access, which was Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00002343(1).jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Sophia Papapetru, a Staff Attorney for the Federal Bureau of Prisons at MDC Brooklyn, requests the judge vacate an order from January 15, 2021, and restore the previous schedule for laptop access (Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM – 8:00 PM), presumably for the defendant's legal preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00002274.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing (Document 117) dated January 25, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Sophia Papapetru, a Staff Attorney for the Federal Bureau of Prisons at MDC Brooklyn, requests the Judge vacate a previous order from January 15, 2021, and restore a specific schedule for laptop access (7:00 AM – 8:00 PM, M-F) for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00001950.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a bail hearing, dated December 10, 2020. A prosecutor argues against granting bail, stating the defendant is not being candid about her extensive financial resources and that surrendering passports is insufficient to prevent flight risk. The prosecutor cites the case of Jeffrey Epstein, as decided by Judge Berman, as a relevant precedent for denying bail on grounds of flight risk and dangerousness.
DOJ-OGR-00001949.jpg
This document is page 72 of a court transcript from the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 10, 2020. The prosecution argues to the Judge that the defendant is a serious flight risk, justifying why they did not offer her the chance to surrender voluntarily. The prosecutor also notes the defendant's lack of candor regarding finances and references separate civil litigation where defense counsel refused to accept service on the defendant's behalf.
DOJ-OGR-00001948.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on December 10, 2020. In it, a government prosecutor, Ms. Moe of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, argues that the government's presentation is based on undisputed facts from a grand jury indictment, not media 'spin'. She references the indictment's 'chilling' allegations, including the trafficking of underage girls and the defendant's undisputed actions of living in hiding.
DOJ-OGR-00001947.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, concludes his argument for his client's bail, asserting the government has failed to prove the client is a flight risk. He asks the judge to grant bail or to keep the proceeding open for a week to allow for the submission of more information.
DOJ-OGR-00001944.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, discussing a client's detention and the discovery process. Mr. Cohen argues that his client's arrest, despite voluntary surrender, limits access and that the COVID crisis complicates gathering financial information. He also highlights the government's request for an extended discovery period until November.
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