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-00017709.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on a discrepancy in her prior statements to the government regarding a trip to New York with Maxwell and Epstein at age 14, specifically about seeing the Broadway show 'The Lion King,' which did not premiere until she was 17. The transcript reveals communications between the government and Jane occurred through her legal representatives, including a Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00017705.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies in her prior statements to the government about a trip to New York with Epstein and Maxwell, specifically a trip to see 'The Lion King'. The witness's attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to the line of questioning, which is overruled by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017703.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, recording the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane about a statement she made to the government regarding being flown to New York by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to see 'The Lion King'. The proceedings are briefly interrupted when a juror suffers a coughing fit, causing a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017701.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies in her story, specifically regarding a trip she took to New York with Ghislaine and Epstein at age 14 to see 'The Lion King'. The questioner highlights a discrepancy between her current testimony and what she initially told the government in a meeting in September 2019, particularly concerning whether anything inappropriate occurred on that trip.
DOJ-OGR-00017700.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 a witness named 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on clarifying Jane's memory regarding statements made to the FBI and the government in November 2019 and April 2020. Specifically, Jane confirms reporting that she was abused '90 percent of the time' she traveled with Epstein and Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017699.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney questions Jane about incidents in New York involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and despite objections from another attorney, Jane confirms that she did tell the government about at least one such incident.
DOJ-OGR-00017697.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is cross-examining a witness identified as 'Jane' regarding inconsistencies between her current testimony and notes taken by the government during interviews in September 2019 and February 2020. Jane disputes the accuracy of the government's notes regarding her 'first trip to New York,' stating she was never recorded and the notes are 'out of sequence and incorrect.'
DOJ-OGR-00017696.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies between her current testimony and prior statements made to the government in 2019 regarding a trip to New York at age 14 where she allegedly met Epstein. Jane denies the accuracy of the statements being presented, and her counsel, Ms. Moe, objects to the line of questioning, with the court sustaining the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017694.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding a juror's question about a 'letter of recommendation' and 'Interlochen applications' contained in evidence binders. Following this discussion, the jury enters, and the court instructs Ms. Menninger to resume her cross-examination of the witness identified as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00017693.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. They discuss a legal point concerning "Rule 408" and a previous motion to quash, after which Ms. Moe raises an issue of "brief anonymity," prompting the judge to call for a sidebar discussion. The transcript is part of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00017692.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the admissibility of evidence for impeaching a witness named Jane, debating whether the issue falls under Rule 408, and emphasizing the necessity of the witness's personal knowledge. The judge also elaborates on the binding nature of Second Circuit precedent on district courts unless overturned by a higher authority.
DOJ-OGR-00017691.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. They are discussing a complex legal issue regarding an amended rule and a Second Circuit decision on the admissibility of civil litigation settlements in a criminal case. The judge expresses doubt that the rule amendment overrules the binding Second Circuit precedent and asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to research the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00017690.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutors and defense attorneys argue over the admissibility of questions regarding a witness's ('Jane') settlement negotiations, with the defense arguing it proves bias and the prosecution objecting under Rule 408. The Judge intercedes by citing *Manko v. United States*, suggesting that the civil settlement exclusion rule (Rule 408) may not apply in criminal prosecutions.
DOJ-OGR-00017689.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) involving a sidebar discussion between the defense (Ms. Menninger), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Judge. The defense argues for the right to cross-examine a witness named 'Jane' regarding her participation in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program to show bias or financial motivation. Specifically, the defense highlights that Jane was offered $5 million but her lawyer rejected it, filing a motion for reconsideration to demand an 'eight-figure settlement' (at least $10 million).
DOJ-OGR-00017688.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural argument between attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe before the Court regarding the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane.' The dispute centers on whether a letter written by Jane's civil attorney can be used to refresh her recollection without introducing hearsay into the record.
DOJ-OGR-00017686.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and a judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The core issue is whether questions about a $25 million settlement demand, made by the witness in a civil case, are admissible under Rule 408 to show bias, particularly as the demand was made while a related criminal case against Ms. Maxwell was pending. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues the questions are proper to show bias, while attorney Ms. Moe seeks to limit the scope of the examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017684.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between counsel and the judge during a break in a trial. After the jury is excused for a ten-minute break, counsel Ms. Moe raises two procedural matters with the Court: an ongoing anonymity issue and a Rule 408 issue concerning documents that were just received that morning.
DOJ-OGR-00017682.jpg
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on her past interactions with 'Ghislaine' and 'Epstein' and a statement she allegedly made to the government in December 2019. The witness states she does not recall making the statement and is directed to review a document (3509-005) to refresh her memory.
DOJ-OGR-00017681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on a statement Jane made to the government on February 27, 2020, where she admitted she was 'not sure' if she had ever been alone in a room with just Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, contradicting or challenging her current memory.
DOJ-OGR-00017677.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attorney attempts to impeach the witness's credibility by highlighting inconsistencies between her current testimony, a statement given in December 2019 (where she had no specific memory), and a statement from February 2020 (where she recalled two other girls being present). The witness claims the government's written record of her statement contains a 'typo' or incorrect wording.
DOJ-OGR-00017676.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger. The defense attorney questions the consistency of Jane's memory regarding her first encounter with Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting she fabricated a memory recently that she did not possess in December 2019. The dialogue also references a meeting between Jane and the government in February 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00017673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on Jane's prior testimony about seeing Ghislaine Maxwell undressed and an alleged incident where she, Epstein, and Maxwell went upstairs to a room. The transcript includes objections from an attorney, Ms. Moe, and rulings from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017672.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named "Jane," filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on the witness's recollections of incidents involving Epstein and Ghislaine, specifically probing her memory of seeing Ghislaine topless by a pool and an occasion where Epstein demanded she follow him upstairs. The witness's ability to recall specific questions from a previous day's testimony by a "Ms. Moe" is also challenged.
DOJ-OGR-00017671.jpg
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on Jane's prior statements to government agents about Jeffrey Epstein's behavior, specifically whether he controlled where people sat in movie theaters. The transcript includes a legal objection by an attorney, Ms. Moe, which is overruled by the court.
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.
Arrest Details
Discussion regarding the defendant's evasion attempts during arrest.
Disclosure of investigative files
Ms. Moe confirms that the files in question are from the F.B.I.'s previous investigation of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida. She explains these files have been shipped to the New York F.B.I. office, imaged, and scanned for a comprehensive review. She then asks for clarification on the Court's subsequent question.
Bail/Detention arguments regarding flight risk
Discussion of defendant's ability to live off the grid, use fake names, and evade detection.
Superseding Indictment
Ms. Moe stated the government did not currently anticipate seeking a superseding indictment.
Trial Date Scheduling
Ms. Moe argues for a speedy trial (May or June), opposing a September date, citing public interest and the length of time passed since charged conduct.
Case Scheduling
Discussion regarding trial dates, discovery deadlines, and seized evidence.
Proposed scheduling for motions and trial
Ms. Moe, on behalf of the government, proposes a schedule for the defense to file discovery-related and pretrial motions, with subsequent deadlines for the government's response and any replies. She also requests the court to set a trial date for June of the following year.
Motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act
Ms. Moe, on behalf of the government, moves to exclude time from the speedy trial calculation from the current date until July 31st.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding redactions on bank records and the specific content of Exhibit 509.
Redirect Examination
Questioning regarding applications, height, and grade level in 1995.
Scheduling and Privilege Review
Conferring on a proposed schedule and privilege-review protocol.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity