Ms. Moe
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
19
Very Strong
|
26 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representative |
17
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
228 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Opposing counsel |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mrs. Hesse
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Maguire
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Special Agent Maguire
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Drescher
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. McHugh
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial schedule, closing arguments, and jury deliberation timing relati... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing (likely for Ghislaine Maxwell) | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing enhancements for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of Counts Seven and Eight against Ghislaine Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Carolyn testified and wrote down her mother's phone number to avoid saying it aloud. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Jane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution announces intent to rest case | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Pre-sentencing argument | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Patrick McHugh | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Kelly Maguire | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding media reports of Epstein's flight logs | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Nicole Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing Calculation | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding Maxwell's sentencing or appeal points concerning her role in the conspiracy. | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of Shawn's testimony and calling of Nicole Hesse to the stand. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 (a book) to the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule and closing arguments | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding sexualized massages and relationship timeline. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar regarding cross-examination of witness 'Jane'. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government meeting with witness Brian | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
EFTA00027949.pdf
This document is an email chain between attorney Jack Scarola and an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Scarola identifies a victim who was molested in Florida beginning at age 14 and received lingerie gifts from Epstein. The correspondence coordinates a potential meeting between federal investigators and the victim in Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00018360.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a legal argument regarding the redaction of documents to protect the identity of a person referred to as 'Jane' from being cross-referenced with public records on PACER. The Judge instructs the attorneys (Ms. Moe and Mr. Rohrbach) to find a middle ground that protects witness privacy while acknowledging facts already in the public trial transcript before the jury enters.
DOJ-OGR-00018359.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the Judge, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Moe regarding the sealing and redaction of exhibits marked J8 and J9. Ms. Menninger argues for specific redactions to protect plaintiffs' identities while keeping the bulk of the document public, citing 'Lugash' precedent. The Court orders the exhibits temporarily sealed while the parties confer on the specific redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00018357.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion in open court regarding the sealing and redaction of defense exhibits, specifically J15 and a proposed J15R. The core issue is the protection of identifying information related to 'Jane,' who was the subject of a recent cross-examination. Various parties, including Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Menninger, debate the necessity and process of sealing these exhibits to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.
DOJ-OGR-00018277.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding the relevance of photographs, prior testimony by Jane, and the submission of evidence binders for upcoming witnesses. The Court also provides a reminder to Ms. Comey about microphone usage.
DOJ-OGR-00018276.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of photographs. The core issue is the lack of a proper foundation for the evidence, as the expected witness, Jane, did not testify, and there is a significant time gap of approximately 25 years between the events she allegedly witnessed (c. 1994-1995) and a 2019 search.
DOJ-OGR-00018275.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal dispute where prosecutors Ms. Moe and Ms. Comey request to brief an issue regarding photographic evidence, accusing the defense of 'sandbagging' by objecting late. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell denies the accusation, while the Judge notes a 'factual disjointedness' regarding the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018274.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs of a 'massage room' inside a residence. The Judge sustains an objection to the photos because they were taken over 20 years after the events described by a witness, and depict 'highly mobile items' that may not accurately reflect the room's state at the relevant time.
DOJ-OGR-00018273.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring a legal argument between an attorney (Ms. Moe) and the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs. The attorney argues the photos corroborate a witness's 'blind description' of a residence's interior. The Judge expresses skepticism due to the significant passage of time (15-20 years) and the fact that the photos may depict 'movable items' rather than permanent structures.
DOJ-OGR-00018272.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the admissibility of photographs of a 'New York house' (implied to be Epstein's). The prosecution argues the photos corroborate the testimony of a witness named 'Jane,' who described specific decor (nude artwork, animal decorations, and a red massage room) present during her visits between 1994 and her early twenties.
DOJ-OGR-00018271.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. The dialogue involves the Judge, Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell discussing procedural matters regarding the sealing of documents and objections to specific evidence (the '900 series' exhibits). Mr. Everdell notes that these objections relate to a search conducted in 2019 and will become relevant when Agent Maguire testifies to introduce the exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00018231.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) and the judge. The discussion centers on the afternoon's witness schedule, including Kimberly Meder and Stephen Flatley, and a request by Ms. Menninger to address issues with evidentiary material that was disclosed very late the previous night. The judge and attorneys work to clarify the order of proceedings for the remainder of the session.
DOJ-OGR-00018132.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys (Moe, Everdell, Comey) and the Judge discussing the testimony of a witness named 'Jane,' specifically her detailed description of the interior and artwork of a house. Additionally, Ms. Comey raises a privacy concern regarding ensuring that a video shown to jurors does not simultaneously appear on public screens in overflow rooms, which is relevant for the witness following Mr. Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018129.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell are discussing with the judge the proper way to present evidence, including items in a bag and photographs of a residence. Mr. Everdell raises a concern about the relevance of photographs taken during a 2019 search, as they depict the residence's interior 15 years after the alleged conspiracy ended in 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00018128.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe debating the admissibility and description of 'costumes' (Government Exhibit 53) and photographs of them (Exhibits 919 and 920). The defense argues specifically that these items must not be described to the jury as 'schoolgirl outfits' to avoid prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00018126.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge regarding the admission of evidence, which is revealed to be photographs of costumes. The judge rules the evidence is relevant but reserves a final decision on its admission pending connecting testimony from a future witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018123.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. An unidentified speaker, likely from the defense, argues against admitting costumes as evidence, claiming they are irrelevant and would prejudice the jury. In response, Ms. Moe, for the prosecution, argues the evidence is highly relevant to counter the defense's repeated claims that Epstein had no interest in underage girls, citing his possession of "schoolgirl outfits" near his massage room.
DOJ-OGR-00018122.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell and the judge regarding the admissibility of evidence. The key points are the government's intent to use photographs of a massage room rather than the physical table, and Mr. Everdell's argument that costumes found in a 2019 search are irrelevant as they were discovered 15 years after the alleged conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00018121.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, discussing the evidence gathered during a July 2019 FBI search of Mr. Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. An attorney outlines the government's plan to introduce photographs via FBI agent Maguire and notes an agreement has been reached not to introduce certain hard drives and CDs as physical evidence. The discussion also mentions other physical items found, such as costumes and a massage table.
DOJ-OGR-00018084.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, covering the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the admission of exhibits 2C through 2W, arguing they were not written by Mr. Alessi or his wife and lack authentication. The Court (Judge) asks to see 'the book' containing the exhibits and subsequently overrules the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018067.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument by an attorney, Ms. Moe, regarding the authentication of an exhibit related to 'Maxwell and Epstein'. The Court sustains an objection made by Ms. Comey, instructs the jury to disregard certain testimony, and reserves its final decision on admitting the exhibit until after hearing from a witness referred to as 'employee one'.
DOJ-OGR-00018066.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, during the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The Court and counsel (Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca) discuss the admissibility of testimony regarding an exhibit, specifically a 'book' (likely an address book) where the witness noted his and his wife's names were missing, leading him to believe it was a later version. The judge sustains a foundation objection and orders the jury to disregard the witness's belief about the book's version.
DOJ-OGR-00017873.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses JANE, MATT, and DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN by various attorneys, providing the corresponding page numbers. The index also lists Defendant and Government exhibits that were received into evidence and their respective page numbers in the transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00017850.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding on August 10, 2022. It records the conclusion of testimony from a witness named Matt, who is excused by the court. Immediately following, counsel for the government, Mr. Rohrbach, calls the next witness, Daniel Alan Besselsen, who is then sworn in to testify.
DOJ-OGR-00017849.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Matt regarding his past relationship with a victim referred to as 'Jane.' The testimony covers Jane's reaction to Ghislaine Maxwell's 2020 arrest, where Jane confirmed to Matt that Maxwell was the woman at Jeffrey Epstein's house who had made her feel comfortable. The witness also relays a conversation where Jane told her mother that money she received 'was not free.'
Sentencing Guidelines / Supervisory Role
Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence proves Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, satisfying the requirement for an organizer/leader enhancement.
Sentencing recommendation
Requesting an above-guideline sentence to hold the defendant accountable and send a message that no one is above the law.
Scheduling and Sealing
Ms. Moe updates the court that the prosecution anticipates resting their case 'this week' and discusses sealing a document containing pseudonym identities.
Admissibility of Photographs
Discussion regarding whether photographs corroborate a witness's blind description of a residence interior given the time lapse.
Verification of facts
Conferring with the agent involved in breaching the door to verify information.
Cross-examination regarding travel records
Clarifying the start date of travel bookings (1999) and the date range of records in exhibit RS-1 (1999-2006).
Response to Scheduling Concerns
Ms. Moe argues the request is premature but states that if the defense rests the week of the 20th, the jury should be permitted to deliberate.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding clarification of New York vs New Mexico law in jury charges.
Sentencing arguments
Prosecution opening statement regarding sentencing recommendation for Ghislaine Maxwell.
Post-testimony discussion
Ms. Moe spoke with Jane's attorney following Jane's testimony, reminding him of something.
Discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if the conspiracy end date mentioned by the court (July 2004) differs from the sentencing transcript, they will submit a letter to the Court.
Potential discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if a review of exhibits shows a different date than the sentencing transcript, 'we will submit a letter to the Court'.
Potential discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if a review of exhibits shows a different date than the sentencing transcript, 'we will submit a letter to the Court'.
Duration of a criminal conspiracy
MS. MOE argues to the Court that a conspiracy was still active at the end of 2004, citing Carolyn's testimony about visiting Epstein's house as evidence.
Duration of a criminal conspiracy
MS. MOE argues to the Court that a conspiracy was still active at the end of 2004, citing Carolyn's testimony about visiting Epstein's house as evidence.
Court proceedings
Ms. Menninger reports to the court that "Ms. Moe and I spoke briefly."
Jane's testimony
Ms. Moe spoke with Jane's attorney following Jane's testimony, recalling that she told and reminded him of something (the details are cut off).
Copy of notes
Ms. Moe suggests that during the court break, they will send an email containing a copy of the notes to the judge's chambers.
Discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if the conspiracy end date from the exhibits differs from the sentencing transcript, she will submit a letter to the Court.
Testimony of Special Agent Maguire regarding their FBI ro...
Ms. Moe questions Special Agent Maguire about their employment at the FBI, their assignment to the C20 child exploitation and human trafficking task force, their specific job responsibilities, and their involvement in an FBI operation on July 6, 2019.
Unknown
Ms. Moe refers to a note she made about a conversation with Mr. Glassman, which she argues cannot be an exhibit at trial.
End date of a conspiracy and post-conspiracy evidence
Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence shows a conspiracy continued through 2004 and into 2005. The Court challenges this, suggesting the evidence is for post-conspiracy conduct as it exceeds the date of Carolyn's 18th birthday, a key element of the charge.
Anonymity Order Confirmation
MS. MOE asks the Court to confirm that the anonymity order for the witness Kate, particularly regarding sketch artists, is in effect.
Response to argument
Ms. Moe, when asked to respond to Mr. Everdell's point, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal and states that they rest on their previously submitted briefing on the issue.
Objection to Offense Level Calculation
Ms. Moe objects to the judge's calculation under guideline 3D1.4, stating that 5 units should add 4 levels, not 5.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity