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-00001942.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, dated December 10, 2020, where a lawyer is arguing before a judge ('your Honor') regarding a client who has been in custody. The arguments involve the application of legal factors (3142 factors), guidance from the Second Circuit and Supreme Court, and the historical context of the alleged conduct. The judge ('THE COURT') interrupts Mr. Cohen to ask for clarification on a point.
DOJ-OGR-00001940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An unidentified attorney argues before a judge during a bail hearing, contending that a lengthy examination of their client's assets is unnecessary and intended only for detention, citing a precedent from a Judge Raggi. The attorney also signals their intent to file significant legal motions that could challenge the indictment's validity, which they argue the court should consider when weighing the evidence for bail purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00001938.jpg
This legal document discusses the government's claims regarding a client's financial activities, including 15 bank accounts and transfers of funds, one for $500,000 and another for several hundred thousand in June and July 2019. The speaker refutes some claims and explains the context, noting that the client's not-for-profit was shut down due to media attention and that a bank dropped the client after Mr. Epstein's arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00001935.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2020, where an attorney argues against the detention of their client. The attorney refutes the government's claim that a perjury charge should warrant detention, framing it as a simple denial of guilt during a deposition and emphasizing the defendant's right to be presumed innocent. The speaker also notes the government has been investigating the case for ten years and requests the proceedings remain open to present more facts.
DOJ-OGR-00001933.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a speaker, likely an attorney, argues that a woman is not a flight risk for changing her email and phone number. The speaker explains that her personal information was inadvertently released to the public through unsealed court documents related to a case involving Mr. Epstein, leading to her receiving strange emails and her phone being hacked. She kept the hacked phone, which contains correspondence with her counsel, as evidence for her own civil litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00001929.jpg
This document is page 52 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The defense attorney is arguing for the client's release on strict conditions, refuting the government's claim that the client is a flight risk or has been 'hiding out.' The attorney highlights that the client has been actively litigating civil cases since 2015 and denying impropriety regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00001925.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2020, where an attorney, Mr. Cohen, references past high-profile cases (Madoff, Dreier, Esposito) to support his arguments. The presiding judge questions the relevance of these precedents, specifically asking if those defendants had substantial international connections. Mr. Cohen concedes that they did not, highlighting a key factual distinction from the current case.
DOJ-OGR-00001924.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An attorney is arguing for their client's pretrial release, citing precedent from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to assert that the burden of proof lies with the government to demonstrate the client is a flight risk. The attorney criticizes the government for not meeting this burden and introduces a prepared bail package for the judge's consideration.
DOJ-OGR-00001922.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, where an attorney argues for a client's release. The attorney cites a 2005 opinion by Judge Orenstein in *United States v. Turner* to support the argument that while victims have a right to be heard, this right does not constitute a veto over a defendant's release, especially when conditions can be set to ensure the defendant's appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001906.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues to a judge that the defendant is not being truthful about her financial situation. The speaker highlights the defendant's lifestyle, which seems inconsistent with her disclosed assets, and points to a specific instance of non-transparency regarding a property in New Hampshire. The government is actively investigating this property transaction, having had an F.B.I. agent interview the real estate agent involved.
DOJ-OGR-00001902.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. A prosecutor argues that the defendant is a significant flight risk due to the serious nature of the charges, which involve an alleged long-term scheme of abusing minors with Jeffrey Epstein, and her recent efforts to conceal her whereabouts in New England. The judge then interrupts to question an attorney, Ms. Moe, about a specific assertion made by the defense concerning Ms. Maxwell's contact with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00001891.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. In the transcript, a speaker identified as Ms. Moe explains to the judge ('your Honor') that files from a previous F.B.I. investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in Florida have been physically shipped to the New York F.B.I. office. These files have been scanned and imaged to allow for a comprehensive review, and the court is inquiring about the process for disclosing any additional information that may be found.
DOJ-OGR-00001889.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. Prosecutor Ms. Moe addresses the court regarding the status of discovery, noting that materials will include search warrant returns, electronic data, and prior investigative files from the Southern District of Florida (referencing the earlier Epstein investigation). The government is waiting for a protective order to be finalized with defense counsel before producing the first batch of discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00001884.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The judge, government counsel Ms. Moe, and defense counsel Mr. Cohen agree to conduct the day's proceedings remotely due to the pandemic. The judge rules that the hearing cannot be delayed, emphasizing the interests of justice and the fact that the detained defendant is seeking release on bail.
DOJ-OGR-00022016.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 10, 2020, capturing a tense exchange between a lawyer, Mr. Foy, and the presiding judge. Mr. Foy argues that his family's planned vacation to Italy should not be a professional issue, while the judge becomes increasingly frustrated, repeatedly ordering Mr. Foy to stop talking and sit down. The transcript highlights a breakdown in courtroom decorum and a conflict between the lawyer's personal life and the court's proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00022009.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on February 10, 2020, for case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. A defense attorney states their intention to file a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of selective prosecution. The attorney also requests discovery materials from an Inspector General's report concerning the same incident, anticipating that this will cause a trial delay, to which the court replies that the issue has already been addressed.
DOJ-OGR-00022008.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 10, 2020. In it, a defense attorney argues for an adjournment, stating that their small law firm requires more than 90 days to prepare a defense, which involves reviewing at least 25 witness statements and tracking down witnesses. The attorney contrasts their limited resources with the extensive time and resources the federal government used to investigate and bring an indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021988.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on December 19, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. An attorney argues that their female client, who is presumed innocent, should not be deprived of her constitutional right to possess a firearm during the pretrial period, asserting she is not a threat and requesting individualized consideration. The judge concludes the argument by stating they will next hear from the government.
DOJ-OGR-00021986.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 19, 2019. An attorney is arguing before a judge for their client, Ms. Noel, to be allowed to possess her firearm during pretrial proceedings for a nonviolent offense. The attorney corrects a previous statement, revealing that Ms. Noel has credentials to carry the firearm for her job, and argues that restricting this right is an infringement of her Second Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00021983.jpg
This is a transcript of a court proceeding from December 19, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. Defense counsel, Mr. Figgins, requests that the court obtain a timeline from the government for an inspector general's report, which he believes is vital for his case. The government's counsel, Ms. Donaleski, responds that she does not have a timeline for the report but assures the court that all relevant discovery materials will be provided to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021630.jpg
This document is a transcript of a statement made in court on June 29, 2023, by an individual convicted for their role in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. The speaker expresses remorse and empathy for the victims, acknowledges their conviction, and describes Epstein as a manipulative and controlling person, stating that meeting him is the greatest regret of their life. The statement reflects on the devastating impact Epstein had on everyone around him.
DOJ-OGR-00021618.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains the end of a victim impact statement from Ms. Ransome, who directly addresses Maxwell, and the beginning of another statement from Ms. Stein. Ms. Stein recounts moving to New York in 1991, attending FIT, and working at Henri Bendel, where she first encountered Ghislaine Maxwell as a customer.
DOJ-OGR-00021604.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, where a government prosecutor is arguing for an above-guideline sentence for a female defendant. The prosecutor contends that the defendant's dishonesty, the severe and predatory nature of her sex-trafficking crimes, and the acknowledged inadequacy of the 2003 sentencing guidelines all justify a sentence longer than the calculated 188-235 months.
DOJ-OGR-00021603.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a sentencing hearing, dated June 29, 2023. The speaker argues that the defendant, Maxwell, was a willing and crucial partner to Jeffrey Epstein, enabling his crimes to live a luxurious lifestyle funded by him. The text portrays Maxwell as a predator who viewed her victims as disposable and has shown no remorse for the lasting trauma she caused.
DOJ-OGR-00021579.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a legal argument about whether an individual named Maxwell had supervisory authority over another person named Kellen. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the judge that pilot testimony and the fact that someone was present while Kellen scheduled massage appointments is insufficient evidence to prove a supervisory role. The discussion also touches upon sentencing enhancements for sex offenders.
Witness Logistics
Discussing arrangements for Jane to travel home and potential recall needs.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity