MOE
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAGLIUCA
|
Opposing counsel |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Rodgers by defense attorney Mr. Everdell. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Recess | A recess is taken during the court proceedings. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Hesse by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding messages she took, whic... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Cross-examination | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Hesse by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding messages she recorded, ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
EFTA00028074.pdf
This document is an email notification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, dated July 24, 2019, regarding the case United States of America v. Epstein (Case No. 19-2221). It announces the filing of a Notice of Appearance for additional counsel on behalf of the United States. The notification lists recipients including attorney Reid Weingarten and Deputy Clerk Donnell G. Bolden, and references an attached file named 'Moe NOA.pdf'.
EFTA00023817.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 28 to August 3, 2020, between SDNY prosecutors (including an AUSA and Alison) and UK defense attorneys from Blackfords LLP (Gary Bloxsome, Jennifer Richardson). The correspondence negotiates the terms of a voluntary interview for a Blackfords client (unnamed in text, but contextually relevant to Prince Andrew) in connection with 'US v Maxwell'. Key topics include protections against evidence use outside the Maxwell case, immunity comparable to MLAT proceedings, elements of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (False Statements), and the extension of a 'Negotiation Period' to August 10, 2020.
EFTA00009834.pdf
This document contains a series of email exchanges between defense attorney Joe Nascimento and prosecutors from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) regarding a client connected to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The emails discuss scheduling meetings, proffers, and interviews, as well as confirming representation after the passing of the client's previous attorney, Alan Ross.
DOJ-OGR-00018332.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. In it, the judge dismisses a witness, Mr. Dawson, for the weekend, stipulating that he may only have logistical contact with the government as he is still under cross-examination. The judge and counsel then discuss and set a filing schedule for briefs related to the next witness, Maguire, who is scheduled to testify the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00000823.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet for Case 19-2221 (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein) covering the period of July 8 to July 15, 2019. It details the addition of defense attorneys (Weinberg, Weingarten, Fernich), the filing of motions regarding pretrial release and sealing documents, and the government's opposition to these motions. The document culminates in a Bail Hearing held on July 15, 2019, before Judge Richard M. Berman.
DOJ-OGR-00019060.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a moment during a trial where the judge calls for a mid-afternoon break. The cross-examination of witness Rodgers by defense attorney Everdell is paused, and the jury and witness are dismissed. The attorneys for the government (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) confirm they have no immediate matters to discuss, with Mr. Everdell noting he is less than halfway through his questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00018958.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding messages she recorded. The questioning focuses on identifying the recipients of these messages, specifically Mr. Epstein (initials JE) and a person named Sarah, by referring to an exhibit labeled GX-1B.
DOJ-OGR-00016847.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a specific flight log entry (916) and a passenger named "Jane." Dr. Dubin states he cannot fully read the entry and does not recall the flight or meeting anyone named Jane on it.
DOJ-OGR-00016859.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the end of the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin. Attorney Ms. Moe asks a final question about medical conditions, which is objected to by attorney Mr. Pagliuca but allowed by the judge. After a brief answer, the testimony concludes, and the court excuses Dr. Dubin.
DOJ-OGR-00016835.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal discussion after a witness, Dr. Dubin, is excused. Attorney Ms. Moe argues against questioning a witness based on their memory of media reports concerning flight records, suggesting the witness should be shown the actual records instead. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca begins to justify the relevance of his questioning to the judge by stating that the flight records were leaked to the media.
DOJ-OGR-00016470.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Moe, Ms. Menninger). The discussion centers on procedural issues concerning witnesses, including the legal authority for witness anonymity and the application of Rule 615, which governs the presence of witnesses in the courtroom. The attorneys agree to research and brief the court on the legal basis for their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00013840.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a scheduling discussion between the judge and various counsel. The defense, represented by Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Sternheim, estimates their case will take two to three days and suggests using an available Saturday to proceed. All parties, including Ms. Moe and the Court, agree to this proposal.
DOJ-OGR-00013605.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the beginning of testimony in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, calls William Brown to the stand as a witness. After being sworn in, Mr. Brown states his name and testifies that he works for the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Division of Field Investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00013476.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The judge calls for a mid-afternoon break during the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by defense attorney Mr. Everdell. After a recess, Mr. Everdell informs the court that he is not yet halfway through his questioning, indicating the examination will continue for some time.
DOJ-OGR-00013374.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding messages she recorded. The messages, part of exhibit GX-1B, were for individuals named Mr. Epstein (initials JE) and Sarah.
DOJ-OGR-00013351.jpg
A page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Pagliuca objects to the admission of a 'spiral bound book' of message slips under the business records exception (Rule 803.6), arguing the witness (Hesse) lacks knowledge of how they were recorded or stored. Prosecutor Moe responds that the authenticity of the book has been established by the witness and is not in dispute.
DOJ-OGR-00014557.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where the jury is not present. A lawyer, Ms. Moe, makes an application to the court, objecting to the defense counsel's summation, arguing that they referred to facts not in evidence. As a specific example, she states that Ms. Menninger read an email from someone named Kate that the court had previously ruled inadmissible.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity