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-00017668.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The discussion, involving attorneys Ms. Menninger, Ms. Moe, and the judge, centers on whether a witness's statement of "I don't remember" can be treated as inconsistent with a prior statement made to an agent concerning an individual named Epstein. The parties debate the proper legal procedure for questioning a witness about such a potential inconsistency.
DOJ-OGR-00017665.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between attorney Ms. Moe and the Judge (The Court) regarding the proper procedure for impeaching a witness ('Jane') versus refreshing her recollection using prior statements or documents. Ms. Menninger is mentioned as the attorney questioning the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017664.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the correct procedure for questioning a witness, Jane, who repeatedly claims she cannot remember her prior statements to the government. The judge advises the attorneys on how to phrase questions to avoid improperly introducing prior statements when the witness has no recollection.
DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a cross-examination. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger debate with the Court about the proper handling of a witness's (Jane Cross's) lack of recollection, specifically concerning whether Epstein directed her seating. The core issue revolves around refreshing a witness's memory versus allowing the jury to consider the witness's current inability to recall as relevant evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017662.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on establishing that a person named Epstein would control social situations by directing where Jane and other girls sat in a movie theater. The transcript also captures a procedural discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Menninger) and the judge regarding a prior statement the witness made to the government on February 27, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00017659.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning attorney confirms Jane's prior statement to the government that Maxwell and Epstein visited her house before an instance of abuse. The transcript also explores Jane's past relationship with Ghislaine, whom she once viewed as a "big sister", and confirms details about her own family, including two older sisters.
DOJ-OGR-00017656.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioner challenges Jane's testimony regarding the frequency with which she was picked up by an unnamed man and the method by which meetings at Epstein's house were arranged. The questioner points out a discrepancy between her current testimony about Ghislaine arranging meetings and a statement she gave to the government in November 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00017655.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning attorney, Ms. Menninger, confronts Jane with her alleged prior statements about being at Epstein's house with her mother and brothers, and being driven there by a chauffeur. Jane repeatedly responds that she does not recall making the statements about her family but confirms discussing the chauffeur.
DOJ-OGR-00017653.jpg
This document is page 44 (internal pagination 450) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). A witness identified as 'Jane' is under cross-examination regarding an initial meeting ('tea') with Jeffrey Epstein attended by Jane and her mother. The questioning highlights that Jane previously told the government (in Oct 2021) that Maxwell was not present at this specific meeting, and that Epstein referred to his philanthropic activities (scholarships/mentoring) using singular pronouns ('he') rather than plural.
DOJ-OGR-00017650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning challenges the witness's testimony by highlighting inconsistencies between her current account and a prior statement she gave to the government on September 19, 2019, concerning an encounter with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein and a discussion about scholarships. The witness suggests that any discrepancies may be due to transcription errors by the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00017643.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Moe, who is testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane'. Attorney Ms. Menninger questions the witness about an application she made in the summer of 1996, focusing on a new address in the Bear Lake Estates gated community. The questioning relates to Defendant's Exhibit J-5, which the court admits into evidence under seal to protect the witness's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017642.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on confirming the witness's address and validating applications for the summers of 1994, 1995, and 1996. Two exhibits, J-5 and J-6, are discussed, with the defense moving to admit J-6 under seal without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017641.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on her past entertainment career in 1994, including her participation in a touring production of 'Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat' in Florida, and confronts her with a prior statement she made: "Nothing has been very difficult for me." The transcript also records a brief pause where an attorney, Ms. Moe, confers with defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00017633.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on establishing Jane's age (16) during a specific summer and reviewing Exhibit J-3, which is identified as an application where Jane answered a question regarding scholarship or financial aid.
DOJ-OGR-00017631.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the start of a court session. The judge addresses the jury, announces the continuation of Ms. Menninger's cross-examination of a witness using the pseudonym "Jane," and reminds the witness she is under oath. The judge also instructs the courtroom sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness of the witness, indicating measures are being taken to protect her identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017630.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger) and the Court regarding the admissibility of internet materials, specifically Wikipedia pages and tabloid articles, as evidence before a jury. Ms. Menninger argues she is providing materials in advance to expedite proceedings, while Ms. Moe objects to their nature.
DOJ-OGR-00017628.jpg
This page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details a discussion between the judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. Ms. Moe updates the court on resolving prior disagreements, requests a sidebar regarding a witness issue, and flags anticipated Rule 408 objections regarding defense exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017627.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, about how to handle 18 binders of sealed exhibits for the jury and the witness stand. After agreeing on the procedure, the judge thanks the counsel for their work on anonymity issues and calls for a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017626.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding whether to discuss certain topics at a sidebar or to confer with a witness's attorney first. The Judge instructs the counsel to confer with the witness's attorney before bringing the matters to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017625.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. The parties are debating the timing and method for resolving two or three outstanding issues, weighing the efficiency of handling them immediately against the preference for a sidebar and the dependency of one issue on upcoming witness testimony. The conversation occurs while they are waiting for the jurors to be brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00017622.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a dispute over a witness's credibility ('impeaching') regarding where she lived at age 14. Ms. Moe argues the witness lived in a pool house due to financial issues, while Mr. Everdell argues that her 1994 Interlochen application lists a different address, contradicting her claim of being homeless or in a pool house.
DOJ-OGR-00017621.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Moe, regarding a witness's testimony. The discussion centers on clarifying the witness's past residences in Palm Beach as a teenager, specifically distinguishing between a 'first address' identified as a pool house and a 'second address'.
DOJ-OGR-00014978.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated January 15, 2025, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on a phone call in April 2021 where Rocchio allegedly defined terms such as 'child,' 'sexual abuse,' and 'nonconsensual' to a group of Assistant US Attorneys (Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, Rohrbach). Rocchio states they do not specifically recall the definitions given or the context of the notes taken by the AUSAs.
DOJ-OGR-00014847.jpg
This court transcript from August 22, 2022, details a discussion about finalizing a judgment in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court informs counsel of its decision to set the end date of the criminal conspiracy as July 2004, noting this differs from the government's previous position. The government's counsel, Ms. Moe, states she will review the exhibits and will only file a written objection if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
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