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-00018541.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of Special Agent Maguire by counsel Ms. Moe. Maguire testifies about the procedure of a search at a residence, which involved labeling approximately 40 rooms and taking photographs. The agent then identifies Government Exhibits 933, 910, and 911-R as photographs of the residence's entryway and main foyer.
DOJ-OGR-00018536.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of FBI Special Agent Maguire by an attorney, Ms. Moe. Maguire testifies about their four years of experience with the FBI, their assignment to the C20 child exploitation and human trafficking task force, and confirms their participation in an FBI operation on July 6, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00018535.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion between the defense (Mr. Everdell), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Court regarding Exhibit 913, which contains photos of children and other individuals found on a desk; the parties agree to file it under seal due to privacy interests. Following this discussion, the jury enters, and the government calls Special Agent Kelly Maguire as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018534.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It records a dialogue between The Court and counsel Ms. Moe regarding the redaction of Exhibit 911, specifically debating whether to redact a painting over a mantel or a small photograph of an individual on a table. Ms. Moe agrees to unredact the painting and instead redact the photograph to protect potential privacy interests or witness identity.
DOJ-OGR-00018531.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, explains why they did not show certain evidence to victims 'Jane' and 'Kate' during interviews to preserve the integrity of their memories against defense challenges. The Judge challenges the relevance of introducing photos taken in 2019 of 'movable objects' (specifically schoolgirl outfits) to prove a conspiracy that ended 15 years earlier.
DOJ-OGR-00018529.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a legal argument over the admissibility of photo exhibits dated from 2019. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues the photos demonstrate Jeffrey Epstein's sexual preference for schoolgirls, while the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the Judge question the relevance given the time gap and location discrepancies (New York vs. Palm Beach) relative to the charged conspiracy. The text mentions testimony from a witness named 'Kate' regarding schoolgirl outfits.
DOJ-OGR-00018527.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises an objection regarding the admissibility of exhibits 919 and 920 (photographs of schoolgirl outfits) intended to be introduced by the next witness, Kelly Maguire. Everdell argues that although 'Witness 3' (Kate) described wearing such outfits, she did not identify these specific photos during her testimony, lacking the proper legal foundation required for admission, similar to a previous situation with a witness named Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00018525.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Witness McHugh testifies regarding the authenticity of Government Exhibit 507, identified as a JP Morgan account signature card. The witness confirms comparing the exhibit against internal bank records, and the Court admits the exhibit into evidence without objection before excusing the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018521.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh. The questioning focuses on Ghislaine Maxwell's bank account, specifically on checks that appear to be signed by Harry Beller rather than Maxwell herself. The line of questioning aims to establish that Harry Beller had signatory authority over Maxwell's finances.
DOJ-OGR-00018513.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh. The questioning focuses on financial accounts belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. A specific transaction from September 2002, documented in "Government Exhibit 504" as a statement for an account held by Jeffrey Epstein, is discussed.
DOJ-OGR-00018511.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh. The questioning focuses on Government Exhibit 506, which is identified as a signature card for a bank account ending in 4324. The questioner establishes a link between this account and the company Air Ghislaine Inc., while attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell interject to clarify details about the exhibit for the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018510.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 Mr. McHugh, a banker with 30 years of experience. The questioning focuses on Government Exhibit 501, a financial statement for 'Air Ghislaine Inc.' from June 2007, specifically highlighting a transaction on June 18th involving the purchase of a green helicopter from Sikorsky. The defense attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to questions regarding the general practice of purchasing assets through companies.
DOJ-OGR-00018507.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh regarding the authorization required for someone running a 'family office' to control financial accounts. The questioning focuses on the concept of signatory authority over money market and checking accounts, with objections from an attorney, Ms. Moe, and rulings from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018506.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh. An attorney questions McHugh about whether transactions in accounts managed by 'family offices' are typically handled by someone other than the account holder. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to the questions, but is overruled by the court, and the witness ultimately states the question is too general to answer.
DOJ-OGR-00018505.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh by an attorney, Mr. Everdell, regarding the typical functions of a 'family office' in managing the finances of wealthy individuals. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, repeatedly objects to the questions, which probe whether wealthy clients personally control their accounts or cede that control to the family office.
DOJ-OGR-00018504.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. McHugh, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on Mr. McHugh's familiarity with the concept of a 'family office'. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, repeatedly objects to the line of questioning, with the court sustaining at least one of her objections.
DOJ-OGR-00018503.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. McHugh, about the typical assets of high-net-worth individuals, such as multiple bank accounts, brokerage accounts, homes, and planes. An attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to a question about planes, and the court sustains the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018502.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh. The questioning focuses on financial transactions from October 19, 1999, specifically a sale and a transfer of approximately $18.3 million each, within an account controlled by Jeffrey Epstein. The line of questioning aims to establish that Epstein possessed significant wealth.
DOJ-OGR-00018500.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a cross-examination concerning Jeffrey Epstein's financial accounts at JP Morgan. The testimony confirms that Epstein, like other high net worth individuals, held millions of dollars in his bank accounts, and references Government Exhibit 504 as evidence discussed during the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00018495.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named McHugh. Under questioning, McHugh explains that instructions for transactions, such as the purchase of a green helicopter, are provided by the client. He explicitly denies any personal involvement in the accounts or transactions being discussed and also denies ever having any interactions with Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00018491.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. McHugh. The testimony focuses on an account statement dated June 15, 2007, verifying a wire transfer received by Ghislaine Maxwell (account ending 6312) from Mellon Bank, with Jeffrey Epstein listed as the beneficial owner located in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands.
DOJ-OGR-00018488.jpg
This document is page 151 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named McHugh by an attorney named Ms. Moe. The testimony concerns an asset account statement from September 2002 held in the name of Jeffrey Epstein, care of Financial Trust Company.
DOJ-OGR-00018487.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, documents the direct examination of a witness, Mr. McHugh. The testimony establishes that on October 19, 1999, an account belonging to the Financial Trust Company, Inc., whose president was Jeffrey Epstein, wired $18.3 million to Ghislaine Maxwell. The document records objections from an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and a request from another attorney, Ms. Moe, to display an exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00018485.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Moe, conducts a direct examination of a witness, Mr. McHugh. The questioning focuses on identifying Government Exhibit 505 as an asset account statement from October 1999 for account number 5001 at the Financial Trust Company, Inc. Ms. Moe also directs an assistant, Ms. Drescher, to display specific parts of the exhibit, including entries dated October 19th.
DOJ-OGR-00018484.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Drescher, by an attorney, MS. MOE. Ms. Drescher testifies about an asset account application dated August 11, 1999, identifying Jeffrey Epstein as the account holder. She also explains to the jury that an asset account is a client-controlled account used for holding and trading securities.
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