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-00000618.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from August 6, 2019, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg agrees the case meets complexity criteria for an extension. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues against a delay until September, advocating for a trial in May or June due to the 'public interest' in a swift resolution and the significant time passed since the charged conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00000614.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 6, 2019. In it, a representative for the government, Ms. Moe, proposes a detailed schedule to the court for the defense to file discovery-related and pretrial motions, with corresponding deadlines for the government's responses. Ms. Moe concludes by requesting that the court schedule a trial for June of the following year.
DOJ-OGR-00000613.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein), filed on August 6, 2019. The text details a scheduling conference where prosecutor Ms. Moe proposes an October 31 deadline for discovery. She notes a specific exception regarding materials seized from the defendant's New York residence, which the F.B.I. is currently reviewing, necessitating a privilege-review protocol with defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00000609.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 26, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The judge tentatively schedules a conference for the parties on July 31st and grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to exclude the intervening time under the Speedy Trial Act. The judge justifies the exclusion as necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ensure effective legal representation for all parties.
DOJ-OGR-00021045.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing the conclusion of a legal proceeding. The judge clarifies the guideline fine range is 20 to 200,000 per count, which is confirmed by counsel. Before adjourning, the judge thanks the victims, their counsel, counsel for Ms. Maxwell, and counsel for the government.
DOJ-OGR-00021044.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding. The judge (THE COURT) informs a party of their appellate rights, discusses issuing a post-trial order, and establishes July 2004 as the official end date for a criminal conspiracy. Counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, acknowledge the court's statements and indicate they have no objections, though Ms. Moe reserves the right to submit a letter if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00021036.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the explanatory commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, when offered a chance to respond, declines to make a verbal argument and instead rests on her previously submitted written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00021035.jpg
A page from a court transcript (likely the sentencing hearing in US v. Maxwell, filed in the 2023 appeal) debating sentencing enhancements. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues that testimony from pilots proves Maxwell had supervisory authority over Sarah Kellen within the conspiracy. Defense attorney Everdell rebuts that Maxwell's presence while Kellen scheduled 'massage appointments' does not constitute supervision. The defense also mentions a 'five-point enhancement for repeated and dangerous sex offenders.'
DOJ-OGR-00021034.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. The defense argues against a sentencing 'leadership enhancement' for Ghislaine Maxwell, citing testimony from pilot Larry Visoski and assistant Cimberly Espinosa to prove that Sarah Kellen worked solely for Jeffrey Epstein, not Maxwell. In rebuttal, the government (Ms. Moe) cites testimony from a victim named Carolyn, who stated that Maxwell remained present at the Palm Beach residence even when Kellen took over scheduling massages.
DOJ-OGR-00021032.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the roles and relationships of individuals involved in a scheme, specifically focusing on the defendant's leadership over Sarah Kellen and their shared association with Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell. It highlights evidence from flight records showing the defendant and Sarah Kellen traveling on Epstein's private jet, indicating an overlap in their involvement as close associates in an ongoing scheme. The discussion also touches upon legal arguments regarding the supervision of criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00021031.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Ms. Moe, responds to a judge's question about the hierarchy of a criminal conspiracy. Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence shows the unnamed defendant held a leadership position superior to that of Sarah Kellen, who was an assistant to Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. The argument is based on the defendant's role shifting over time and Kellen taking on tasks like calling victims, placing the defendant higher in the scheme's structure.
DOJ-OGR-00021030.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 29, filed 02/28/2023) involving the sentencing or legal arguments in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues to the Judge that Maxwell qualifies for a sentencing enhancement as an 'organizer or leader' because trial evidence proved she supervised Sarah Kellen. The discussion centers on whether the criminal activity involved five participants or was 'otherwise extensive,' with the government asserting Maxwell's supervision of Kellen satisfies the legal requirements.
DOJ-OGR-00021029.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 28, 2023, likely from the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). Defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) argues that evidence of money moving to buy a helicopter does not prove the defendant's continued criminal involvement, comparing it to pilot Larry Visoski holding assets for Epstein without being a co-conspirator. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) counters that the financial evidence was introduced to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020913.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a procedural argument between counsel. Government counsel Ms. Moe pushes for a quick, by-Friday deadline for a post-trial briefing on an issue concerning Juror 50's testimony. Opposing counsel Ms. Sternheim argues for a two-week extension, citing the issue's importance and an upcoming trial she is starting on the 16th. The judge acknowledges the issue's significance but appears to favor a more expedited schedule.
DOJ-OGR-00020909.jpg
This document is a transcript page (A-283) from Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), documenting a voir dire hearing. The Judge questions 'Juror 50' regarding their lack of diligence in filling out a jury questionnaire; the juror admits to being 'distracted' and rushing ('float, fly through it') to finish. Prosecutor Ms. Moe confirms the government has no further questions at that stage.
DOJ-OGR-00020907.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (dated Feb 28, 2023, Case 22-1426) involving a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe before the Judge. The discussion centers on the credibility of a male witness/victim who gave an interview to a journalist named Lucia from 'The Independent' about sexual abuse. Everdell argues the witness is inconsistent regarding whether he understood that speaking to the press would make his identity and abuse public.
DOJ-OGR-00020906.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Moe) about a potential juror. The conversation focuses on the juror's questionnaire answers, his past as a victim of sexual abuse, and his interactions with a journalist named Lucia, questioning his understanding of the public consequences and his ability to be an impartial juror.
DOJ-OGR-00020903.jpg
This document contains pages 27 and 28 of a court transcript designated 'M38TMAX1'. It details a sidebar conference following the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding his history of sexual abuse and ability to be impartial. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues for further questioning regarding the juror's 'healing process' and self-identification as a victim to ensure he can be impartial in a sexual abuse case, while Ms. Moe proposes questions about the juror's adherence to the questionnaire process.
DOJ-OGR-00020891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding 'Juror 50' from the 'United States v. Maxwell' case. The judge confirms with both the juror and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about his jury service. The judge also rules that the juror may continue to be referred to as 'Juror 50' to protect his anonymity, consistent with his actions in post-verdict press interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00020857.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE) while the jury is not present. The discussion centers on a letter submitted by the defense overnight, which the judge just received. Ms. Moe argues that the letter merely repeats a legal argument about jury instructions that the defense made the previous day and which the Court had already considered and rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed as part of an appeal in 2023) documenting a dispute between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding jury instructions. The issue concerns a jury question about 'Count Four' and potential confusion between New York and New Mexico laws. The Judge shuts down the debate and decides to refer the jury back to the original charge.
DOJ-OGR-00020846.jpg
This court transcript from February 28, 2023, captures a legal debate about how to properly instruct a jury. The jury is confused about 'Count Four', which involves a violation of New York law, but they are asking about flights to New Mexico. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim present their arguments to the judge on whether simply referring the jury back to the original instructions is sufficient to clear up the apparent jurisdictional confusion.
DOJ-OGR-00020838.jpg
This court transcript page, dated February 28, 2023, documents a discussion between a judge and attorneys about how to properly respond to a jury's question. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, present conflicting views on which specific jury instructions are relevant to the jury's query concerning 'Count Four'. The judge expresses difficulty in understanding the jury's exact question and considers following the government's suggestion.
DOJ-OGR-00020837.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated February 28, 2023 (filing date). Attorneys Mr. Everdell (Defense) and Ms. Moe (Prosecution) are arguing over how to answer a jury question regarding 'Count Four' and 'Jane.' The debate centers on whether a 'return flight' from New Mexico can serve as the basis for a conviction if the initial flight's intent for illegal sexual activity is in question.
DOJ-OGR-00020834.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel. The court reads a note from the jury requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m. and then facilitates a discussion among the lawyers, including defense counsel Ms. Sternheim and another counsel, Ms. Moe, who proposes referring the jury to a specific instruction.
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