THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017817.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. Jane testifies about the emotional significance of compensation she received for past abuse, stating she wishes she never received the money and that it was a means to cover expenses and attempt to move on. She confirms she has no financial stake in the outcome of the current trial and expresses hope for closure.
DOJ-OGR-00017816.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (redirect examination) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the testimony of a witness named 'Jane.' Jane testifies about a specific memory where her relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell changed from 'casual' to sexual, specifically recalling the first time she was unclothed with both Maxwell and Epstein. The prosecutor asks about her age at the time (14-16) and introduces the topic of an award Jane received from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund.
DOJ-OGR-00017812.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) documenting the redirect examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The testimony focuses on Jane's height (five-foot-four), grade level (eighth grade), and potential inaccuracies ('fibbing') in applications submitted in 1995 for summer camp and the Professional Children's School.
DOJ-OGR-00017811.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on personal information from a summer camp application (height, weight, grade) and her attendance at Interlochen the following year. The transcript also records procedural matters, including an attorney's request for the jury to view a sealed piece of evidence, Defendant's Exhibit J-4.
DOJ-OGR-00017807.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane,' discusses a past phone conversation with a reporter where she was careful not to reveal her name. She also testifies about how she hired her attorney, Robert Glassman, noting that he was a friend of her husband's best friend.
DOJ-OGR-00017805.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures the testimony of a witness named Jane. Jane explains to the jury that she spoke to a reporter against her will because he "basically blackmailed" her. The reporter allegedly threatened to publish her name, which he claimed was in unredacted court documents and "Epstein's little black book."
DOJ-OGR-00017797.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to questioning by another attorney, Ms. Menninger, on the grounds of relevance and personal knowledge. The Court overrules the objection and admits Defendant's Exhibit J-15 into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017795.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane' by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on Jane's recollection of interrogatories and answers given under oath in a previous civil case filed in June 2020. The witness denies recalling answering questions under oath or knowing what her lawyer wrote, but acknowledges filing the lawsuit.
DOJ-OGR-00017793.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on her recollection of attending Mike Wallace's 80th birthday party, which the questioner suggests occurred in May 1998. Jane confirms she sang "Happy Birthday" but is unsure of other details, while her attorney, Ms. Moe, makes several successful objections.
DOJ-OGR-00017791.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on establishing Jane's exact age (13 vs 14) when she first met Jeffrey Epstein, referencing prior statements made to the government and court filings.
DOJ-OGR-00017786.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger, regarding a document identified as Government Exhibit 761. Jane acknowledges writing the document and clarifies that during her senior year she had a manager, not an agent, as suggested by the questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00017784.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning aims to define the profession of an actor, establishing that they portray fictional characters for a living using their voice, body, and lines written by others. The transcript also includes an objection from another attorney, Ms. Moe, regarding a court exhibit, which the judge agrees to review.
DOJ-OGR-00017776.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by a lawyer, Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on whether Jane's cooperation with the government was motivated by potential financial gain from civil litigation against the Estate of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, as well as a victims' compensation fund. The transcript also captures procedural discussions between the lawyers and the Court regarding the timing of witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00017775.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a procedural discussion between the judge and several attorneys (Moe, Sternheim, Menninger). The conversation focuses on the next witness, identified as Matt, and addresses how potential evidentiary issues, such as the introduction of prior consistent statements, will be handled. An attorney also requests permission to ask a leading question under Rule 611(c).
DOJ-OGR-00017774.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar or legal argument between the Judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger regarding the specific wording of a cross-examination question for a witness identified as 'Jane.' The discussion focuses on whether the witness believed her testimony would aid her in civil litigation or the 'victims' comp fund.'
DOJ-OGR-00017772.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (likely a criminal trial) where attorneys and the judge are discussing the phrasing of a question regarding a witness named Jane. The discussion focuses on differentiating between Jane's understanding at the time she began cooperating with the government versus her current testimony, specifically concerning her financial stake and resolved civil matters.
DOJ-OGR-00017771.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The central topic is a legal argument concerning the waiver of attorney-client privilege, specifically whether a client's disclosure to the government constitutes a waiver. The judge directs the attorneys to submit a formal brief on the waiver issue.
DOJ-OGR-00017770.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a criminal case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a sidebar or legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, and the presiding judge regarding the admissibility of a line of questioning for a witness named Jane. The discussion focuses on whether questions about what Jane was told regarding her testimony's impact on a civil case are proper for impeaching the credibility of the prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00017769.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about attorney-client privilege. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a portion of the privilege was waived, while another, Ms. Moe, states she is unprepared to respond. The judge ultimately rules that the issue is too complex to be decided on the spot and requires the parties to submit formal legal briefs on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00017768.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a sidebar or legal argument regarding witness 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues that the witness may be motivated to testify in the criminal trial to increase a financial payout in a separate civil case. The Judge ('The Court') expresses concern that questioning the witness about communications with her lawyer regarding this strategy would violate attorney-client privilege and rules to limit the scope of questioning on 401/403 grounds.
DOJ-OGR-00017767.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the Judge, Ms. Moe (Defense), and Ms. Menninger (Government) regarding the scope of cross-examination for a witness named 'Jane.' The discussion centers on whether the defense can ask if Jane is aware that her attorney told the government about her expectations for financial compensation in civil litigation, and whether such questions violate attorney-client privilege or are relevant to her credibility and bias.
DOJ-OGR-00017766.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane.' Ms. Menninger attempts to question Jane about her knowledge of statements her lawyer made to the government regarding how her testimony might impact civil litigation. Ms. Moe (Jane's counsel) objects, arguing that this line of questioning is an attempt to bypass attorney-client privilege and does not constitute valid impeachment.
DOJ-OGR-00017765.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 records a legal argument between defense attorney Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane.' The discussion centers on whether the defense can ask Jane if she believes her testimony in the criminal trial will assist her in a separate civil litigation recovery, and involves arguments regarding attorney-client privilege waivers when information is disclosed to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00017764.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger before a judge. The discussion centers on whether Ms. Menninger can question a witness, Jane, about her potential expectation of receiving a higher financial payout in a related civil case as a result of her testimony in the current criminal proceeding. The attorneys and the court explore the relevance of this line of questioning, touching upon privileged communications and the timeline of a victims' compensation fund.
DOJ-OGR-00017762.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal debate during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues that attorney-client privilege was waived because a communication was shared with the government. In response, attorney Ms. Moe suggests questioning the witness about her motives and potential bias related to a civil case, as a way to proceed without directly challenging the privileged communication.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $9,500,000.00 | Value of real property offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | security company | THE COURT | $1,000,000.00 | Bond co-signed by a security company. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $550,000.00 | Cash offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | THE COURT | $28,500,000.00 | Proposed total bond amount. | View |
| 2020-12-14 | Received | Sureties (Family/... | THE COURT | $0.00 | Meaningful pledges of cash or property in amoun... | View |
| 2020-07-13 | Received | Unidentified co-s... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount by the defense, which the ... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure Maxwell's appear... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Defense/Co-signers | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom of... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure appearance. | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Ms. Maxwell / Ass... | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom us... | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $22,500,000.00 | Proposed bond amount representing all of the co... | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | MR. EPSTEIN | THE COURT | $0.00 | Defense offer to put up 'any amount' of collate... | View |
| 2019-07-11 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | THE COURT | $77,000,000.00 | Valuation of Manhattan residence to be mortgage... | View |
| 2010-07-01 | Received | Epstein's counsel | THE COURT | $5,000.00 | Proposed sanction fine for discovery violations. | View |
Clarification of 'minors' in indictment
Argument regarding Count Five, specifically the definition of 'minors' versus specific ages (17 or 18) to avoid ambiguity during the 2001-2004 conspiracy period.
Conference Call
Court inquired why defense counsel was presenting two different versions of facts.
Legal representation of facts
Comparison of facts in this letter versus a legal brief.
Information regarding the investigation of Juror No. 1.
A letter dated July 21 was sent to the Court containing information about an investigation into Juror No. 1. The Court questions the witness about whether her law firm would have disclosed this information without being prompted.
Disclosure of research/internal communications
A letter addressing the Court's question regarding information on Juror Number One, disclosing the firm's earlier research.
Unknown (Identified as Government Exhibit 28)
Letter at the Court identified as Government Exhibit 28.
A matter related to a fact that had come to light after a...
A letter submitted to the court on July 21st, which included an attached Westlaw opinion. The questioning revolves around whether this letter was intended to mislead the court about when the information was discovered.
July 21st letter
A letter submitted to the court.
Information regarding the investigation of Juror No. 1.
A letter dated July 21 was sent to the Court containing information about an investigation into Juror No. 1. The Court questions the witness about whether her law firm would have disclosed this information without being prompted.
SORA Registration
Explaining that the offense is registrable in Florida and recognized by NY State Board of Examiners.
Epstein's Compliance
Stating Epstein has already registered and recognizes the duty, but reserving right to appeal.
Scheduling
Reference to a statement made 'yesterday' regarding witness timing and closing arguments.
Awareness of issues concerning Juror Number One [Conrad]
A conference call where the Court sought to determine if the defendants were aware of disturbing information about Juror Conrad. Trzaskoma responded on the call.
Argument for unsealing
Media organizations arguing for public access to the housing letters.
Question 49
Juror 50 answered a question regarding his history, which the court notes he did not read closely.
Financial Disclosure
Epstein will provide more specific information regarding assets in a sealed supplemental disclosure.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity