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-00014846.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 22, 2022, documents a hearing for Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, requests she be designated to the women's prison facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program; the court agrees to recommend this to the Bureau of Prisons. Subsequently, the government's counsel, Ms. Moe, moves to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments, a motion which the court grants.
DOJ-OGR-00014845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, regarding her client Ms. Maxwell's sentence. Ms. Sternheim argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized,' but the Court counters that other assets exist and proceeds to formally impose the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00014834.jpg
This document is page 87 of the sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It captures the conclusion of Maxwell's statement to the court, followed by procedural discussions between the Judge, defense counsel Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding supervised release conditions and restitution. The court notes that while Count Six carries mandatory restitution, the government agrees none should be ordered as victims have already been compensated.
DOJ-OGR-00014811.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding. The court confirms a previously established anonymity order for a witness using the pseudonym "Kate," specifically instructing sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness. Kate then begins her victim impact statement, expressing fear for her daughter's safety in the context of eroding women's rights and referencing a collective effort to bring a "common enemy" to justice.
DOJ-OGR-00014807.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on August 22, 2022, likely related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. A speaker, Ms. Moe, argues for a harsh sentence, after which a victim, Ms. Farmer, delivers a powerful statement detailing the long-term psychological trauma, including a profound loss of self-trust, resulting from the abuse she suffered from both Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014803.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing hearing transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, begins her argument for a significant prison sentence by recounting the abuse of victims Jane, Kate, Annie, Virginia, Carolyn, and Melissa starting in 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00014802.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge (The Court), Ms. Moe, and Ms. Sternheim regarding the order of statements for an upcoming session, specifically coordinating when victims and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, will speak. The court sets the order as government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, before taking a lunch recess until 1:00 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00014799.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a 'bequest' listed in the defendant's financial affidavit should not be considered an asset for the purpose of calculating fines because the source estate is in bankruptcy and paying out victims' claims, making the asset 'tenuous.' The Court questions the status of the bequest and asks Ms. Moe (likely the prosecution) for a response.
DOJ-OGR-00014797.jpg
This document is page 50 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically establishing an offense level of 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235 months. The defense preserves an objection regarding the inclusion of Virginia and Melissa as separate offense groups.
DOJ-OGR-00014796.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a legal proceeding filed on August 22, 2022. A judge details the calculation for a defendant's sentencing, arriving at a total offense level of 37, which corresponds to a prison sentence of 210-262 months and significant fines. A representative, Ms. Moe, raises a specific objection to the judge's calculation of offense levels under guideline 3D1.4.
DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 22, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the commentary on a sentencing guideline for 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal, choosing to rest on her previously filed written arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00014781.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the supervisory authority of Kellen, an employee, in relation to Maxwell, Epstein, and an unnamed defendant. It details arguments about whether Kellen's actions, such as making calls and scheduling massage appointments, constituted supervisory authority, and mentions testimony from pilots regarding Kellen's reporting structure. The discussion also touches upon a five-point enhancement for sex offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00014780.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, in the case of USA v. Maxwell. The defense argues against a 'leadership enhancement' for sentencing, claiming trial testimony proves Sarah Kellen was Jeffrey Epstein's assistant, not Ghislaine Maxwell's, citing witnesses Larry Visoski and Cimberly Espinosa. Prosecutor Ms. Moe rebuts by citing victim Carolyn's testimony that Maxwell was present at the Palm Beach residence even when Kellen took over scheduling massages.
DOJ-OGR-00014778.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell held a leadership role ('lady of the house') over Sarah Kellen, citing flight records to prove they were close associates of Jeffrey Epstein simultaneously. The defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) disputes the government's legal interpretation regarding the supervision of criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00014777.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that Sarah Kellen was a 'criminal participant' subordinate to Maxwell in the conspiracy hierarchy, taking over tasks like scheduling victims so that Maxwell could move higher up in the leadership structure. The Judge questions the specific evidence proving Maxwell's supervision over Kellen.
DOJ-OGR-00014776.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court transcript from the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The discussion focuses on sentencing guidelines, specifically whether Maxwell acted as an 'organizer or leader' of criminal activity. The government attorney (Ms. Moe) argues that Maxwell held a supervisory role over Sarah Kellen, identifying Kellen as a 'criminally responsible participant' to justify the sentencing enhancement.
DOJ-OGR-00014775.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, capturing a legal argument about evidence. A defense attorney argues that a helicopter purchase and testimony from Larry Visoski about holding assets for Mr. Epstein are not proof of their client's continued involvement in a conspiracy. In response, prosecutor Ms. Moe contends that this financial evidence was specifically offered to prove the defendant remained a 'close associate' of Epstein for many years, contradicting the defense's claim that she had 'moved on'.
DOJ-OGR-00014772.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion about the date of a message relevant to a criminal case. An attorney, Ms. Moe, argues to the court that the message is from November 2004, citing surrounding dates in a message pad, the defendant's travel with Epstein at that time, and testimony from a victim named Carolyn as evidence of an ongoing conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00014771.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe argues that a conspiracy continued through 2004 and into 2005, citing as evidence a message from a person named Carolyn in November 2004 attempting to schedule an appointment at 'the house'. The judge questions whether this evidence constitutes post-conspiracy or post-indictment conduct rather than ongoing conspiratorial acts.
DOJ-OGR-00014769.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It captures a legal argument between the judge ('THE COURT') and a government attorney ('MS. MOE') about the end date of a criminal conspiracy. The judge challenges the government's use of evidence from late 2004 and 2005, arguing it constitutes inadmissible 'post conspiracy' evidence because the conspiracy was legally dependent on a person named Carolyn being under the age of 18.
DOJ-OGR-00014768.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 22, 2022. It details a discussion between a judge, government attorney Ms. Moe, and another attorney, Mr. Everdell, about whether a criminal offense continued into November and December of 2004. The determination is critical for deciding if the 2004 sentencing manual applies, with the government arguing it does based on the trial testimony of a crime victim.
DOJ-OGR-00014753.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge, government counsel Ms. Moe, and defense counsel Mr. Everdell. The primary topic is the procedure for addressing the defense's factual objections to a presentence report (PSR). The judge indicates a readiness to review each objection individually to ensure the report's accuracy before sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00014752.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a hearing. The judge confirms with the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, and her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, that they have reviewed and discussed the presentence report. The transcript also notes that another attorney, Mr. Everdell, will handle objections for the defense, and confirms with counsel Ms. Moe that a court order was posted online.
DOJ-OGR-00014751.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. In this excerpt, the judge confirms with counsels Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim that all submissions have been filed and received. The judge then specifically asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to confirm what has been done to notify crime victims under the Justice For All Act, to which Ms. Moe responds that six impacted individuals have been notified through their counsel about the sentencing and their right to be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00014750.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. The Court lists various documents reviewed for sentencing, including support letters for Maxwell, a forensic psychiatric evaluation, a letter from an MDC inmate regarding Maxwell's tutoring, and numerous victim impact statements from individuals including Annie Farmer, Virginia Giuffre, and Sarah Ransome. Counsel for both sides confirm the record of submissions before 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