Trove
Sign In Sign Up

MS. MENNINGER

Person
Mentions
1436
Relationships
123
Events
528
Documents
700
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
123 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person A. Farmer
Legal representative
14 Very Strong
16
View
person JANE
Legal representative
14 Very Strong
11
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Client
13 Very Strong
11
View
organization The Court
Legal representative
13 Very Strong
12
View
person Ms. Comey
Opposing counsel
13 Very Strong
10
View
person JANE
Professional
10 Very Strong
8
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Professional
10 Very Strong
5
View
person A. Farmer
Professional
10 Very Strong
27
View
person Ms. Moe
Professional adversarial
10 Very Strong
6
View
person your Honor
Professional
10 Very Strong
6
View
person MS. POMERANTZ
Professional
10 Very Strong
23
View
person Ms. Moe
Professional
10 Very Strong
27
View
organization The Court
Professional
10 Very Strong
144
View
person MR. ROHRBACH
Professional
10 Very Strong
9
View
person Ms. Comey
Professional adversarial
10 Very Strong
6
View
person Ms. Comey
Professional
10 Very Strong
13
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Professional
9 Strong
5
View
person Mr. Everdell
Co counsel
9 Strong
5
View
person Ms. Moe
Opposing counsel
9 Strong
5
View
organization The government
Opposing counsel
9 Strong
5
View
person JANE
Adversarial
8 Strong
3
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Client
8 Strong
4
View
person Meder
Professional
8 Strong
3
View
person Jane
Professional
8 Strong
4
View
person Ms. Sternheim
Professional
8 Strong
4
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A Court examination Cross-examination of witness JANE by Ms. Menninger. N/A View
N/A N/A Court hearing regarding admissibility of testimony. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Examination of Jane Courtroom View
N/A N/A Cross-examination of witness 'Jane' Courtroom View
N/A N/A Testimony of Kimberly Meder Courtroom View
N/A N/A Testimony of Stephen Flatley Courtroom View
N/A N/A Cross-examination of female witness Courtroom View
N/A N/A Conclusion of A. Farmer's testimony. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Defense summation (closing argument) regarding memory science and conspiracy charges. Court View
N/A N/A Closing arguments/Summation where Ms. Menninger allegedly argued Maxwell was a substitute for Eps... Courtroom View
N/A N/A Court hearing regarding witness recall and sequestration violations. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Legal sidebar regarding cross-examination of witness 'Jane'. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Admission of Government Exhibit 424 into evidence during the testimony of Mr. Flatley. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Cross-examination of witness 'Jane' regarding prior statements. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Court discussion regarding jury deliberations and note interpretation Courtroom View
N/A N/A Court proceedings discussing jury instructions and a question from the jury regarding Count Four. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Court hearing regarding admissibility of technical testimony about CD burning and file dates (cre... Courtroom View
N/A N/A Court Hearing/Sidebar Courtroom View
N/A N/A Examination of Paul Kane Courtroom View
N/A N/A Identification of Exhibit AF9 (Cowboy boots). Courtroom View
N/A Trip Ms. Menninger and her sister visited New York and engaged in various activities like seeing a pla... New York View
N/A Meeting Ms. Menninger and her sister met with Epstein in his office to discuss her college applications. Epstein's office, New York View
N/A Alleged sexual abuse While watching a movie she remembers as 'Five Monkeys', Epstein caressed and held Ms. Menninger's... A movie theater in New York View
N/A Trial testimony A witness gave testimony about her encounters with Maxwell and Epstein, which is now being discus... Courtroom View
N/A Trial Discussion of the trial schedule. The defense case is set to begin on the 16th. Courtroom View

DOJ-OGR-00016756.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. A judge is explaining their rationale for sustaining several objections related to the testimony of a witness named Annie concerning a Ms. Maxwell. The judge concludes there are no inconsistencies in Annie's testimony, particularly her statement "I don't recall," and discusses these rulings with two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Ms. Menninger.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016755.jpg

This document is page 26 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge is issuing rulings regarding the admissibility of prior statements made by witnesses 'Jane' and 'Annie' to determine if they constitute inconsistencies for impeachment. The court rules that several statements regarding details such as a timeline, the presence of a chef, and the amount of horseback riding are either not inconsistent or are collateral matters.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016749.jpg

This document is page 20 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. The content captures a procedural discussion where the Judge ('The Court') outlines the legal requirements for introducing extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a witness, citing United States v. Gulani. Ms. Menninger briefly responds to a question about a pseudonym.

Court transcript (criminal case)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016745.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and attorneys about a witness named Kelly. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, introduces a witness from the 'Nags Head Pub' in the U.K., while the opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, objects, stating they have received no prior information and cannot agree to a stipulation. The judge expresses frustration at hearing about this subpoenaed witness for the first time during the trial.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016744.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument about a witness the defense has been unable to contact. The defense attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, detail their efforts, including issuing a subpoena and providing contact information. Opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, argues that the defense is raising this issue improperly late in the proceedings.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016742.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural debate between the court and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger. The discussion centers on the defense's desire to introduce a new witness, the relevance of ownership documents, a stipulation regarding testimony from a Ms. Maxwell, and the recent discovery of a 2019 deposition of Ms. Menninger's client. The transcript highlights the strategic arguments over evidence and witness presentation during a trial.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016738.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and attorneys Ms. Menninger, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on scheduling, with the defense arguing they cannot conclude their case until the following Monday due to outstanding stipulations and a witness who is only available on that day. The identity of this witness is apparently unknown to at least one of the parties, prompting a question from the judge.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016735.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between a judge and several lawyers regarding procedural issues. The topics include a defense subpoena, ongoing negotiations with the government over redactions for exhibits, and a decision by the defense not to pursue testimony from a Mr. Hamilton in England due to technical complications.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016733.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves Defense Attorney Ms. Menninger, The Court, and Government Attorney Ms. Moe discussing the procedure for a witness to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. The Court and Defense agree that a simple letter or email from the witness's lawyer is insufficient to invoke these rights, and the Defense intends to ask for the subpoena to be enforced, requiring the witness to appear.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016732.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger discusses a third-party witness who has submitted a letter asserting Fifth Amendment privileges to avoid testifying. Menninger argues that the subpoena remains valid and requests the Court enforce it to compel the witness to testify, noting the witness is represented by 'Compton counsel,' a former AUSA.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016727.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Ms. Menninger expresses concern that the government's rebuttal might become a second closing argument and requests the court enforce a rule to limit its scope. In response, attorney Ms. Comey assures the judge that the rebuttal will be significantly shorter than the closing, adhering to the standard practice in the district, a position the court affirms.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016725.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge and two lawyers, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on procedural issues, specifically the potential need to docket an exhibit for an unavailable witness and the judge's refusal to act on a previously submitted letter because its application was unclear. The judge states that the item will only be docketed if it is used as a judicial document in the proceedings.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016724.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and attorneys Comey, Pagliuca, and Menninger. The discussion covers logistical matters, including deadlines for a decision and a legal brief set for that evening. The judge also brings up a letter received the previous day from counsel for a potential defense witness, leading to confusion among the attorneys about who received it.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016722.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge and defense counsel (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim) regarding the trial schedule, specifically aiming to finish witness testimony by the following morning to allow for closing arguments and jury instructions on Monday. The court also mentions a pending motion to preclude and a previous ruling on anonymity.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016720.jpg

This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Counsel for the government, Ms. Comey, offers to stipulate to the testimony of a witness named Hyppolite, which opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger, agrees to discuss. The judge then instructs both parties to confer and identify all remaining issues in dispute by 7:30.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016719.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. A witness named Hyppolite is testifying about searching for student records in the Palm Beach County school system at the request of the defense/prosecution. The proceedings are interrupted by the judge at 4:59 PM to adjourn for the evening.

Court transcript (trial proceedings)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016716.jpg

This document is a transcript of a direct examination from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. An individual named Ms. Menninger questions a witness, Mr. Hyppolite, who identifies himself as a specialist and record custodian for the Palm Beach School District. Mr. Hyppolite explains that his job involves coordinating subpoena processing and representing the district in trials and depositions.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016715.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of the recross-examination of a witness named Aznaran, focusing on whether paper records were logged into the CBP system in the 1990s. Following Aznaran's dismissal, defense attorney Ms. Menninger calls a new witness, Dominique Hyppolite, to the stand for the defense.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016692.jpg

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, attorneys discuss procedural matters with the judge, including a successful request for a one-hour filing extension and an announcement that the parties have reached a stipulation regarding Mr. Glassman, which avoids the need for his live testimony. The transcript concludes as the court prepares to bring in a witness and the jury.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016624.jpg

This document is a court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Menninger, Comey, and Pagliuca discuss scheduling and stipulations regarding 'prior inconsistent statements' found in FBI 302 reports for witnesses identified as Carolyn, Jane, and Annie. The court focuses on resolving issues related to 'Carolyn' immediately as she is an out-of-state witness present to testify that afternoon.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016482.jpg

This document is an index page (Page 266 of 267) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists the examination of four witnesses: William Brown, Annie Farmer, David James Mulligan, and Janice Swain. The index details which attorneys conducted the direct, cross, and redirect examinations for each witness, referencing specific page numbers in the full transcript.

Court transcript index
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016476.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Sternheim, about scheduling the remainder of a trial. They discuss the timeline for the defense case, a charging conference, and closing arguments, which are projected for the 16th through the 21st of an unspecified month. Ms. Sternheim raises a concern about the jury having to deliberate immediately before the Christmas holiday.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016475.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 resolving an attorney-client privilege issue stemming from an email. The judge instructs the attorneys to confer and, if they cannot reach an agreement, sets a deadline of the following Wednesday for the matter to be fully briefed and discussed again.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016474.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The discussion involves Ms. Moe (Government) arguing against the defense calling plaintiffs' attorneys as witnesses, citing attorney-client privilege. The Judge (The Court) discusses a specific email regarding a disclosure and encourages the parties to stipulate what information was relayed to the government rather than calling attorneys to testify.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016473.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 records a discussion between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and Ms. Menninger (Defense) before the Judge regarding the potential need for attorney testimony and stipulations. Ms. Menninger notes that the defense witness list may include attorneys' names marked with asterisks subject to court approval.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
82
As Recipient
6
Total
88

Exhibits/Redactions

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: the government

Email sent regarding exhibits/redactions.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Exhibits J-8/9 and J-15

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: the government

Discussions regarding the release and redaction of specific defense exhibits.

Conferral
N/A
Communication Source

Request for exhibits

From: the media
To: MS. MENNINGER

Media requests for the exhibits mentioned.

Requests
N/A
Communication Source

Travel history

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: JANE

Ms. Menninger asked Jane about an international trip which Jane did not remember.

Legal questioning
N/A
Communication Source

3509-008, page five

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: JANE

Defense attorney asks witness to read a specific paragraph from a document to refresh recollection.

Document reference
N/A
Communication Source

Redactions (implied)

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: Government officials

Regarding exhibits and redactions.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification of legal standard

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Explaining the punctuation in a hypothetical question and clarifying that the flight must be for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Strategy

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: co-counsel

(Counsel conferred)

Conference
N/A
Communication Source

Admissibility of hearsay

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: the government

Agreement regarding the exclusion of Maria Farmer's hearsay statements.

Meeting/conferral
N/A
Communication Source

Encounters with Epstein in New York

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: Court/Investigator ('y...

Ms. Menninger recounted two instances of meeting Epstein in New York. The first was a meeting about college applications. The second was at a movie theater where he held her hand, an act she later reported as sexual abuse to the Victims Compensation Fund. She also stated Ghislaine Maxwell was not present and had no involvement she was aware of.

Testimony/statement
N/A
Communication Source

Communication efforts

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: chambers (The Court)

Ms. Menninger offers to email the judge's chambers with the dates and times of communication efforts to create a factual record.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Evidence exhibit 332B

From: Ms. Comey
To: MS. MENNINGER

Ms. Comey states she told Ms. Menninger 'the other day' that they were not planning to offer exhibit 332B.

Verbal communication
N/A
Communication Source

Court proceedings

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: Ms. Moe

Ms. Menninger reports to the court that "Ms. Moe and I spoke briefly."

In-person conversation
N/A
Communication Source

Cross-examination regarding a trip to New Mexico and a me...

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: ["A. Farmer"]

Ms. Menninger questions the witness, A. Farmer, about their trip to New Mexico, their encounter with Ghislaine, and a meeting with the FBI, highlighting conflicting memories about the date of the meeting.

Court testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Scheduling

From: MR. ROHRBACH
To: MS. MENNINGER

Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Application

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Application received at 11:54, missing a proposed order.

Application/filing
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross-examination regarding evidence

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: A. Farmer

Questioning regarding the submission of a journal (Exhibit 604) to the government.

Court proceeding
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Closing Argument (Summation)

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: Jury/Court

Defense attorney arguing against the credibility of witness Mr. Alessi and introducing the testimony of Dr. Loftus.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross Examination

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: Annie Farmer

Legal examination in court

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross-examination and admission of evidence

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: The Court / A. Farmer

Discussion regarding the admission of Exhibit AF1 (Bates AFarmer10472), a journal page, into evidence without redactions.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Impeachment arguments

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Discussion regarding the permissibility of arguing impeachment based on read-aloud quotes during closing arguments.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Rule 16 and Impeachment Evidence

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Argument regarding whether impeachment documents must be disclosed to the prosecution prior to use.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross-examination

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: A. Farmer

Questioning regarding settlement payout and specific abuse allegations.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Trial Schedule

From: THE COURT
To: MS. MENNINGER

Discussion regarding the timing of closing arguments, jury lunch, and the start of deliberations.

Courtroom dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Introduction of Exhibit AF1

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Discussion regarding the location of exhibits in a binder and the introduction of a specific page from a journal as evidence.

Court proceeding
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search