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-00018483.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of witness Mr. McHugh by Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on the admission of several government exhibits and specifically examines Exhibit 509, a 'Morgan account corporate partnership information application page' for an entity named 'Financial Trust Company, Inc.' The witness confirms that the contact person listed for this account is Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00018482.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, typically associated with the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. A witness named McHugh is testifying under direct examination by Ms. Moe (Government), authenticating JPMorgan records. McHugh confirms comparing physical binder exhibits against system records to ensure they are identical account opening documents and statements kept in the normal course of business.
DOJ-OGR-00018479.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. McHugh, by an attorney, Ms. Moe. Mr. McHugh testifies that he has worked at the bank JPMorgan for thirty years, currently holds the title of Executive Director, and works within the client service group.
DOJ-OGR-00018478.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It captures the final cross-examination questions by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim to a witness named Kate regarding potential fraud in an application to a compensation fund. Following Kate's dismissal, prosecutor Ms. Moe calls the next government witness, Patrick McHugh, who is sworn in.
DOJ-OGR-00018460.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, confirms with the court and opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, an agreement regarding the '900 series' of exhibits. Following this, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins to make a request for the court to order the government to disclose certain information.
DOJ-OGR-00016893.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) and government counsel (Ms. Moe). The core issue is the admissibility of a deposition from Ms. Maxwell, which the government wishes to use to rebut a 'last minute' issue raised by the defense concerning Kinnerton Street property records. The defense offers to stipulate to the property records to avoid the deposition being entered and to negate the need for an additional witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016890.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe before a judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit land registry records for the Kinnerton Street and Stanhope Mews residences to challenge a witness's testimony about Ms. Maxwell's whereabouts in 1992-1993. In exchange for admitting these records, he suggests the prosecution should be allowed to admit deposition testimony from Ms. Maxwell on the same subject.
DOJ-OGR-00016883.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a dispute between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the late disclosure of a witness. The defense introduces Kevin Moran, the owner of the Nags Head Pub located across the street from Ms. Maxwell's residence at 44 Kinnerton Street, as a witness regarding the timing of her residence there. The prosecution objects, citing a lack of prior notice and missing '26.2 material' (witness statements).
DOJ-OGR-00016881.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The text details a procedural argument between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding the late disclosure of defense witnesses. Specifically, there is confusion distinguishing between a plainclothes police officer from the UK seeking anonymity and another 'short witness' the defense planned to call on Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00016880.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim, and Moe). The discussion clarifies that a 'short matter' scheduled for the following Monday is the testimony of a witness from London. A potential issue is raised by Ms. Moe, who states that the witness's name was not on the witness list provided to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00016879.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, clarifies for the record that discovery materials related to an individual named Jane contain very few names (five or fewer), not hundreds. The court then questions another attorney, Ms. Menninger, about the contact information for a witness, who confirms the witness was personally served and given the necessary contact details.
DOJ-OGR-00016878.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the timing of the judge's recent ruling on an application, the failure to enforce a subpoena in a timely manner, and the scope of materials produced as evidence. The attorneys offer to provide further documentation to create a clear factual record for the court's determination.
DOJ-OGR-00016876.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe) regarding witness testimony. Ms. Menninger explains why the defense did not seek anonymity for a witness, while Ms. Moe argues they had other options. The Court notes that the defense has been aware since October of another individual, Kelly, who was implicated by a witness named Jane in "sexualized massages" and subsequently noticed as a defense witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016875.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar or discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding '3500 material' (discovery) received on October 11th. The conversation focuses on the scope of testimony concerning a person named 'Kelly,' alleged involvement in massages, and the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00016872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It records the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Ms. Healy, the dismissal of the jury for lunch, and a subsequent procedural discussion regarding the release of AUSA Alex Rossmiller from a defense subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00016261.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a sidebar discussion between attorneys and the judge. The attorneys are debating how to question a witness about her reasons for returning to visit Jeffrey Epstein in New Mexico, with the court ruling that testimony about what the witness's mother said is inadmissible hearsay. An attorney then proposes an alternative line of questioning focused on the witness's own feelings to circumvent the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00016230.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 records the swearing-in and initial direct examination of a government witness named William Brown. Brown identifies himself as an employee of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Division of Field Investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00016229.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a dispute between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding Government Exhibit 52G; the defense successfully objects to the prosecution directing jurors specifically to entries labeled 'massage, Florida.' The court also admits Government Exhibit 1009 as a public stipulation.
DOJ-OGR-00016226.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge clarifies a procedural matter with counsel, Ms. Moe, regarding which parts of evidence marked as 'identification 52' are being entered into the record. After a brief recess, the judge confirms with both Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger that they are ready to proceed and directs that the jury be brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00016225.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between counsel (Ms. Moe) and the judge. Ms. Moe successfully argues for the admission of evidence related to a person's date of birth to prove they were not underage during the 2000s, which the judge deems relevant for rebuttal. The judge then proposes a sidebar with the parties to discuss jury matters.
DOJ-OGR-00016220.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding 'Exhibit 52' (identified as a book). The defense argues against providing the full book to the jury due to limited cross-examination and relevance, while the prosecution argues the physical object is necessary for the jury to evaluate its authenticity.
DOJ-OGR-00016219.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion between the Judge, Ms. Moe, and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admission of 'Exhibit 52.' The defense (Pagliuca) argues that only photocopies of specific pages, not the entire exhibit, were intended for the jury, while the full exhibit should be preserved for appellate purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00016218.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Moe, and Mr. Pagliuca. The main topic is the clarification of how Government Exhibit 52 and its subparts are to be offered into evidence, ensuring all parties agree on the process involving a stipulation for accuracy.
DOJ-OGR-00016121.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and several attorneys (Moe, Comey, Sternheim). The discussion centers on logistical delays as they wait for all jurors to pass through a security check. Ms. Sternheim asks for and receives confirmation from the judge that the overflow rooms for the jurors are located on the first and fifth floors.
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