Southern District
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Eastern District
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Main Justice
|
Co negotiators |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | A criminal investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators by the Southern District. | Southern District | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations with Main Justice and Southern District | Unknown | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016482.jpg
This document is an index page (Page 266 of 267) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists the examination of four witnesses: William Brown, Annie Farmer, David James Mulligan, and Janice Swain. The index details which attorneys conducted the direct, cross, and redirect examinations for each witness, referencing specific page numbers in the full transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00016481.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures the end of a court session where the judge confirms with counsel for the government (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Mr. Everdell) that there are no further issues to discuss. The judge then adjourns the proceedings to Thursday, December 16, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00016479.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the trial schedule, specifically concerns about the jury having enough time to deliberate before the upcoming holiday season (referencing 'the 27th'). The defense argues against rushing the jury, while the Judge admonishes that closing arguments cannot be delayed until after the holiday.
DOJ-OGR-00016475.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (The Court) and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on resolving an attorney-client privilege issue stemming from an email. The judge instructs the attorneys to confer and, if they cannot reach an agreement, sets a deadline of the following Wednesday for the matter to be fully briefed and discussed again.
DOJ-OGR-00016474.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The discussion involves Ms. Moe (Government) arguing against the defense calling plaintiffs' attorneys as witnesses, citing attorney-client privilege. The Judge (The Court) discusses a specific email regarding a disclosure and encourages the parties to stipulate what information was relayed to the government rather than calling attorneys to testify.
DOJ-OGR-00016473.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and Ms. Menninger (Defense) before the Judge regarding the potential need for attorney testimony and stipulations. Ms. Menninger notes that the defense witness list may include attorneys' names marked with asterisks subject to court approval.
DOJ-OGR-00016472.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) recording a discussion between the prosecution (represented by Ms. Moe) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the timeline for redacting government and defense exhibits. The prosecution argues against a 'fire drill' urgency, proposing to resolve issues over the weekend, which the Court accepts. The discussion then pivots to an attorney-client privilege issue.
DOJ-OGR-00016468.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and government attorney Ms. Moe regarding the scheduling of witness list disclosures and related legal submissions. The parties agree on a timeline for actions on the following Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, with Mr. Everdell highlighting the witnesses' need for a prompt resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00016453.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the judge's instructions to the jury after the government has rested its case. The judge dismisses the jury for a five-day break, admonishing them not to discuss the case or consume media about it, and schedules the trial to resume on Thursday morning with the defense's case. After the jury is excused, defense counsel Mr. Everdell begins to address the court.
DOJ-OGR-00016435.jpg
This document is page 219 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (filed Aug 10, 2022). It depicts the swearing-in and start of the direct examination of witness Janice Swain by attorney Ms. Pomerantz. Swain identifies herself, states she is 71 years old, a high school graduate, and currently works as a sales representative with three children.
DOJ-OGR-00016431.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Mulligan. The questioning focuses on conversations Mulligan had with an individual named Annie, specifically regarding Annie's media appearances, alleged contact with other Epstein victims, and a withdrawn question about Annie's potential financial motivation ('make a lot of money off of this case'). Ms. Pomerantz raises hearsay objections during the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00016413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the end of witness A. Farmer's testimony. After attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Menninger state they have no further questions, the court excuses the witness. Ms. Pomerantz, representing the government, then calls the next witness, David Mulligan, to the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00016410.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the redirect examination of witness Annie Farmer by Ms. Pomerantz. Farmer testifies that she does not need a journal or paper to recall Ghislaine Maxwell touching her breasts during a massage because it was a 'very distressing event.' The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects to the questioning as leading, but the Court allows the line of inquiry to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00016395.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer). The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Farmer about an incident of sexual abuse in a movie theater and introduces exhibit AF-14. The testimony confirms that Farmer signed a release form in October 2020 and received $1.5 million from the Victims Compensation Program.
DOJ-OGR-00016394.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger. The questioning establishes that the witness's attorneys helped set up the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund and that the witness participated in the fund, accepting a payout of $1.5 million.
DOJ-OGR-00016384.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of witness A. Farmer (likely Annie Farmer) during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (implied by case number and context). The defense questions Farmer about inconsistencies between her direct testimony and statements made to the Victims Compensation Fund regarding the specifics of sexual contact (touching of chest vs. groping of breasts) by a female associate, and an incident in a bed with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00016379.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (likely Annie Farmer) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Ms. Menninger questions the witness about a claim form she signed, emphasizing the penalties of perjury and the consequences of filing a fraudulent claim. The questioning also touches on whether the witness remembers being asked where sexual abuse occurred on said form.
DOJ-OGR-00013283.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys discuss the potential recall of a witness named 'Jane' and whether she violated a sequestration order by communicating with her younger brother, who was also under subpoena. The Judge notes that while such communication is poor practice, no specific order barring witness communication had been entered.
DOJ-OGR-00013281.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger and Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach argue over the relevance of a potential witness identified as 'the other brother' and his potential communications with a witness named 'Jane.' The defense notes they have subpoenaed this brother based on his prior FBI interviews, while the prosecution argues there is no basis for further inquiry as 'Jane' has already testified and the government is not calling 'Brian' as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013250.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Carolyn in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions the witness about a 2007 interview with agents where she allegedly did not mention Maxwell. The witness responds emotionally, accusing Maxwell of sexual abuse ('fondling and touching my breasts and my buttocks'), prompting the attorney to move to strike the answer as non-responsive.
DOJ-OGR-00013223.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) covering the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The text details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Comey and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admissibility of questions about specific paragraphs (39, 51, 57) of a complaint. Ms. Comey explicitly describes an incident where Jeffrey Epstein brought another female into a room and penetrated the victim twice.
DOJ-OGR-00013219.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the cross-examination related to a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that there are inconsistencies in the testimony regarding incidents in July 2002, specifically noting that the allegations involve 'fondling of breasts and buttocks' rather than 'sexual intrusion or penetration.' The Judge clarifies the record regarding paragraph references (33 vs 39) before turning to Ms. Comey (prosecution) for a response.
DOJ-OGR-00013209.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, involving Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Comey, and The Court. The discussion centers on an objection regarding a document's consistency with witness testimony and the potential admission of the document or its factual paragraphs. A key point of inquiry was whether Ms. Maxwell is mentioned in the complaint, to which the answer was confirmed as no, leading to a plan to identify inconsistencies with testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013196.jpg
This document is page 183 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The proceedings involve confusion regarding physical binders and Exhibit C4, during which the witness mentions the exhibit relates to her 'being arrested.' Following this statement and confusion over the document, Ms. Comey requests to approach the bench, and the subsequent pages (1622-1624) are noted as sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00013173.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger about a potential violation of a witness sequestration order. The judge instructs the attorneys to brief the issue and schedules further discussion on whether a potential witness named Brian will testify.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity