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 |
DOJ-OGR-00017591.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the testimony of a witness named "Jane." Questioned by attorney Ms. Moe, Jane confirms she has no financial stake in the trial's outcome and explains her desire to remain anonymous as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to protect her private life and career and to avoid public shaming.
DOJ-OGR-00017590.jpg
A court transcript excerpt from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a discussion about witness 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger raises a concern about a potential undisclosed statement from May 2019. Prosecutor Ms. Comey clarifies that the witness was approached by the FBI in May 2019 but declined to speak, and her first substantive interview did not occur until September 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00017589.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe, and the presiding judge. The attorneys debate a proposed question for a witness, Jane, regarding her potential financial stake in the case's outcome. The judge overrules the objection, deciding to allow the question but with a limiting instruction to the jury to ensure they understand the witness is testifying to her own understanding, not providing legal instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00017581.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Jane by Ms. Moe, filed on August 10, 2022. Jane testifies that she moved from New York City to Los Angeles in October 1999 for an acting job. She confirms that after her move, she remained in contact with Epstein and Maxwell until late 2002 and continued to travel with Epstein on his private jet.
DOJ-OGR-00017576.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. A witness identified as 'Jane' is being questioned by Ms. Moe regarding Government Exhibit 245, which consists of two photographs: a modeling photo from age 15 and a headshot from age 19. Jane testifies that her mother made her send the headshot to Jeffrey Epstein after she landed her first big job, and she inscribed it with the phrase 'thanks for rocking my world,' which she now describes as 'cringey.'
DOJ-OGR-00017575.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym "Jane". Jane describes being summoned by a man named Jeffrey from a pool area to his bedroom or massage room. During the testimony, an exhibit containing two pictures of Jane (Government Exhibit 245) is admitted into evidence under seal, consistent with the court's ruling allowing her to use a pseudonym.
DOJ-OGR-00017574.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct testimony of a witness named "Jane." Jane testifies that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein when she was a teenager and that an individual named Maxwell was present for these abuses on more than two occasions. She describes how these incidents would often begin as casual social gatherings at Epstein's house in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00017569.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Ms. Moe conducting a direct examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning centers on conversations Jane had with her mother about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell when she was a teenager. The judge interrupts to provide a limiting instruction to the jury, clarifying that this testimony should be considered for its effect on the witness, not for the truth of what was said.
DOJ-OGR-00017568.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a brief conversation where the judge confirms with two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, that there are no preliminary issues to discuss before bringing in the jury. The proceeding involves the direct examination of a witness named Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00017567.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, regarding the expected testimony of a witness named Jane. Ms. Moe outlines that Jane will testify about being discouraged by her mother from disclosing family issues, especially after her mother reacted negatively to Jane speaking with a guidance counselor following her father's death. The opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger, states she has no objection to this testimony, after which the court takes a short break.
DOJ-OGR-00017566.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 attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger regarding the admissibility of testimony from a witness named 'Jane' about her mother. Specifically, Ms. Moe argues to admit statements where Jane's mother reacted negatively to Jane speaking with a guidance counselor, instructing Jane never to talk about what happens in their house; the Court agrees to admit this with a limiting instruction that it is offered for the effect on the listener, not for the truth of the mother's statements.
DOJ-OGR-00017565.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a legal debate between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Ms. Menninger). The issue concerns the admissibility of statements made by the witness 'Jane's' mother; the government argues it is for the 'effect on the listener' rather than the truth of the matter, while the defense argues it introduces hearsay and precludes cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017562.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named "Jane." An attorney, Ms. Moe, questions Jane about whether her mother was aware that she was spending time with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as a teenager. Jane confirms her mother knew and was "enamored" by the idea, though they did not discuss it in detail. The transcript also includes a hearsay objection by another attorney, Ms. Menninger, which is overruled by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017560.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness using the pseudonym 'Jane' by prosecutor Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on Jane identifying photographs of herself (Government Exhibits 107 and 108) and confirming she was 15 and 17 years old, respectively, when they were taken.
DOJ-OGR-00017549.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named 'Jane' by an attorney, 'Ms. Moe'. Jane testifies that 'Maxwell' (Ghislaine Maxwell) was present during unspecified incidents that occurred when Jane was 14 and 16 years old. Jane also confirms that she began traveling with both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the age of 14.
DOJ-OGR-00017529.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Jane. She testifies that in 1994, upon returning to Palm Beach from summer camp, her family had lost their home and was living in a friend's pool house where she shared a bed with her mother. She further testifies that shortly after starting eighth grade, she was contacted by two people she had met at summer camp.
DOJ-OGR-00017524.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), featuring the direct examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The witness identifies a photograph of herself (Government Exhibit 106) taken when she was 13 years old, which is admitted under seal to protect her anonymity. The questioning establishes her household situation in 1993, noting she lived with her mother and two brothers.
DOJ-OGR-00017522.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Ms. Moe, questions a witness named Jane, who testifies that she met Jeffrey Epstein in 1994. Jane further states that she first had sexual contact with Epstein when she was fourteen years old and that it occurred more than once at that age.
DOJ-OGR-00017521.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym "Jane". The witness identifies Government Exhibit 12 as her birth certificate. Following a request from attorney Ms. Moe and with no objection from attorney Ms. Menninger, the judge permits the jury to view the sealed exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00014540.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney for an associate of Epstein. Menninger argues that Epstein's financial activities, such as paying for employees' children's education and giving away land, were acts of generosity and not for illicit purposes as the prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, suggests. The summation highlights the lack of testimony from key figures like Epstein's accountant, Harry Beller, or bank officials from JPMorgan, urging the jury not to speculate on the purpose of the financial transactions.
DOJ-OGR-00014518.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Summation by Ms. Menninger) filed on August 10, 2022. The defense attorney argues that the accuser (Ms. Moe) changed her story between the victims' compensation fund claim (where she received $1.5 million) and her trial testimony regarding sexual abuse by Epstein and Maxwell. The defense also argues Maxwell was in Santa Fe for architectural meetings and had no role in planning the trip involving the accuser, noting that a person named Maria was originally supposed to go.
DOJ-OGR-00011718.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conference during a trial. The defense counsel, Ms. Sternheim, claims in her opening statement that witnesses' memories were manipulated by their civil lawyers, prompting an objection from the prosecution, Ms. Comey and Ms. Moe. Ms. Moe argues to the judge that introducing evidence about lawyer-client conversations is inappropriate and that the issue of subpoenaing these lawyers had already been raised.
DOJ-OGR-00011675.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the Defense (Ms. Sternheim), and the Judge regarding the placement of screens in the courtroom to ensure evidence shown to a witness is not visible to the public in the gallery. The prosecution expresses concern about visibility for their paralegal and the public, which the Defense addresses by clarifying seating arrangements.
DOJ-OGR-00011674.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. Government counsel, Ms. Moe, raises a concern about the defense's plan to show documents to a witness on a screen that the government cannot see, making it difficult to follow. The judge (The Court) proposes a solution where the defense can use the screen as long as they verbally describe their actions, and offers the same allowance for the government to use paper documents if projection is not possible.
DOJ-OGR-00011673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding whether defense counsel must provide the government with a binder of cross-examination materials before the cross-examination begins. The Court rules that if the defense does not provide the binder in advance, the binder will not be placed with the jury in advance.
Anonymity order for witness Kate
Ms. Moe asks the Court to confirm that the anonymity order for the witness, Kate, is in effect, particularly regarding sketch artists.
Defendant's leadership role and travel overlap with Sarah...
Ms. Moe argues that flight records show the defendant and Sarah Kellen were both flying on Epstein's jet during the same time period, supporting the claim of a leadership role.
End date of a conspiracy and use of post-conspiracy evidence
Ms. Moe, representing the government, argues that trial evidence shows the conspiracy was ongoing through 2004 and into 2005. She contends they are relying on evidence that 'exceeds the date in the indictment' but denies it is post-conspiracy evidence.
Response to Everdell
Declined to argue further, resting on written briefing.
Objection/clarification on sentencing calculation
Ms. Moe responds to the judge by pointing out that under guideline 3D1.4, 5 units should add 4 levels to the offense score, not 5 as the judge had stated.
Sentencing Recommendation
Requesting an above-guideline sentence to send a message that nobody is above the law.
Sentencing Recommendation
Opening statement regarding the government's sentencing request under 3553(a) factors.
End date of a conspiracy and use of post-conspiracy evidence
Ms. Moe, representing the government, argues that trial evidence shows the conspiracy was ongoing through 2004 and into 2005. She contends they are relying on evidence that 'exceeds the date in the indictment' but denies it is post-conspiracy evidence.
Clarification of witness testimony regarding Government E...
Ms. Moe confirms the judge's understanding and clarifies that the witness recognizes the exhibit as one in a series but does not know how it came into the government's possession.
Trial Procedure / Evidence Presentation
Discussion regarding the use of electronic displays versus paper copies for impeaching witnesses and protecting victim anonymity.
Superseding Indictment Correction
Clarifying that the S1 indictment contains a small ministerial correction regarding civil docket numbers in the perjury counts.
Detention Hearing Arguments
Ms. Moe argues that the defendant has not rebutted the presumption of detention and poses a flight risk. The Court asks for clarification on legal burdens of proof.
Defendant's motive for hiding and its relevance to bail.
Ms. Moe responds that, irrespective of the defendant's motive, the facts demonstrate the defendant has the ability and willingness to live in hiding, which is relevant to the court's bail determination.
Proposed Schedule
Discussion regarding the scheduling of the case.
Defendant's finances and flight risk
MS. MOE presents arguments to the court regarding the defendant's finances, suggesting they indicate a significant flight risk. The finances discussed include annual income, net worth, liquid assets, and a multi-million dollar trust account.
Bail/Detention Argument
Argument that the defendant poses an extreme flight risk, has significant financial means, has been less than candid about finances, and should be detained pending trial.
Victim testimony
Ms. Moe informs the court that the victim, Annie Farmer, wishes to speak under her real name.
Discovery of files from a previous investigation
Ms. Moe explains that F.B.I. files from a previous investigation of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida have been shipped to the New York F.B.I. office to be imaged and scanned for a comprehensive review.
Confirmation of arraignment
Ms. Moe confirms to the judge ('your Honor') that the proceeding is an arraignment on the S1 superseding indictment.
Detention Findings
Judge confirms the government is not seeking findings regarding 'danger to the community' for pretrial detention.
Relevance of victim statements in bail analysis
The Judge asks the government to clarify if victim statements should be considered in the 3142 (bail) analysis.
Inquiry on other victims
Judge asks if other victims wish to be heard; Ms. Moe confirms there are none.
Government's reply on the nature of its case presentation
Ms. Moe addresses the court, refuting the idea that the government's presentation is about 'spins' or 'throwing dirt.' She asserts that their case is based on facts detailed in a grand jury indictment, including allegations of trafficking underage girls and the defendant's conduct in hiding.
Discovery Status
Request for status update regarding discovery production and constitutional obligations.
Defendant's finances and flight risk
Ms. Moe argues to the court that the defendant has significant financial resources, including high income, a net worth over $10 million, and a trust with over $4 million, which indicates an ability to flee and raises concerns about her candor.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity