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.
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