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-00016397.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named A. Farmer. The questioning focuses on whether her personal experiences and training as a psychologist lend her credibility, and probes into a 2006 conversation she had with FBI Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall. A question about whether she told the agent she wanted a 'Mr. Epstein' prosecuted is met with a sustained objection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016396.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on the witness's profession as a psychologist and her work with victims of sexual trauma. An opposing attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, objects to a question, which is then withdrawn.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016395.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer). The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Farmer about an incident of sexual abuse in a movie theater and introduces exhibit AF-14. The testimony confirms that Farmer signed a release form in October 2020 and received $1.5 million from the Victims Compensation Program.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016394.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 witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger. The questioning establishes that the witness's attorneys helped set up the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund and that the witness participated in the fund, accepting a payout of $1.5 million.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016393.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer). Defense attorney Ms. Menninger questions Farmer about her attorneys from the firm Boies Schiller and their involvement in setting up the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz objects to the line of questioning on grounds of hearsay and privilege, which the Court sustains in part, asking for a foundation to be laid first.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016390.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on the financial gains of the witness's lawyers in representing Epstein accusers and establishes that the witness shared legal representation with Virginia Roberts. The defense also questions the witness about preparing to testify in a previous civil case around 2016 or 2017.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016379.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (likely Annie Farmer) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Ms. Menninger questions the witness about a claim form she signed, emphasizing the penalties of perjury and the consequences of filing a fraudulent claim. The questioning also touches on whether the witness remembers being asked where sexual abuse occurred on said form.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016377.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer). The testimony concerns the authentication of a signature on an application submitted on June 26, 2020. The defense attorney (Menninger) moves to admit pages of the document, and the prosecution (Pomerantz) agrees subject to a review for redactions to protect third-party privacy, which the Court grants.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013286.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about jury instructions concerning an alleged victim named Kate. The judge clarifies their view on the instruction, avoiding complexities of New Mexico law. An attorney for the government, Ms. Sternheim, then informs the court that their next witness will be Janine Gill, an employee of the Trump organization since 2007, and that they will introduce two government exhibits.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013284.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between attorneys and a judge about witness strategy. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, states she cannot yet confirm which witnesses her side will call, while the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, flags the possibility of calling 'victim 2' later that day. The discussion highlights the fluid nature of trial proceedings and witness scheduling.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013283.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys discuss the potential recall of a witness named 'Jane' and whether she violated a sequestration order by communicating with her younger brother, who was also under subpoena. The Judge notes that while such communication is poor practice, no specific order barring witness communication had been entered.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013282.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding a potential witness named Brian. The defense is weighing the risks of calling Brian due to his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister, while the prosecution notes that Brian has already left the district as he is no longer a government witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013281.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. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger and Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach argue over the relevance of a potential witness identified as 'the other brother' and his potential communications with a witness named 'Jane.' The defense notes they have subpoenaed this brother based on his prior FBI interviews, while the prosecution argues there is no basis for further inquiry as 'Jane' has already testified and the government is not calling 'Brian' as a witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013276.jpg

This document is an index page (Page 263 of 264) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists the examination of witnesses Kimberly Meder, Stephen Flatley, and Carolyn by attorneys Comey, Menninger, Pomerantz, and Pagliuca. It also tracks the receipt of Government Exhibits 304, 306, 307, 320, 321, 322, and 324 into evidence.

Court transcript index (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013275.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022, covering proceedings that adjourned to December 8, 2021. The Judge admonishes the legal teams regarding proper objection protocols, specifically forbidding 'speaking objections' meant to communicate with the jury or witnesses. The session concludes with both the government (Ms. Moe) and defense (Ms. Menninger) confirming they have no further briefings for the evening.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013272.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. The discussion involves logistics regarding witnesses identified as Jane, Matt, and Brian. The government (Ms. Moe) seeks confirmation that the defense will not recall Jane so she can be released, noting that Matt has testified and Brian will not be testifying.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013271.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and a judge about scheduling witnesses for an upcoming hearing. The primary issue raised is a request by attorney Ms. Menninger for the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to discuss her testimony with another subpoenaed witness, who is Jane's younger sibling. The judge also proposes several dates for the hearing to avoid interfering with jury time.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013268.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the Court and various counsel. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, announces they cannot complete a factual investigation on time and have decided not to call a witness named Brian. Other counsel then discuss the need for an updated witness list in light of this development.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013174.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Pagliuca discuss procedural matters with the Judge, including objections to the relevance of upcoming witness testimony and the estimated duration (1-1.5 hours) of Mr. Pagliuca's cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The transcript captures the logistical coordination to ensure the jury is not left waiting.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013173.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger about a potential violation of a witness sequestration order. The judge instructs the attorneys to brief the issue and schedules further discussion on whether a potential witness named Brian will testify.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013172.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the judge (The Court), Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach about several procedural matters. Key topics include the low probability of calling a certain 'brother' as a witness, a past request from a November 23rd pretrial conference to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with experts, and the government's request to speak with a witness named Jane about logistics after her testimony.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013170.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. The Judge and attorneys (Menninger and Rohrbach) are discussing the admissibility of testimony and potential violations of witness sequestration (witnesses speaking to each other). The Judge indicates he is unlikely to exclude testimony unless there was a 'knowing and full violation,' preferring to let the issue be handled during cross-examination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013167.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion about newly discovered text messages between a person named Jane and her brother. The government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, requests a delay in calling a witness, Brian, to allow time to analyze the messages. The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, agrees but expresses concern about the piecemeal disclosure of information and requests a formal, under-oath representation from the witness.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013166.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures the end of a discussion regarding a question with privacy implications during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, acknowledge the judge, who then calls for a 30-minute recess.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013094.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect and recross examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley. Attorney Pomerantz questions him about emails he reviewed in Government Exhibit 54, specifically concerning the email address gmax1@mindspring.com. Attorney Menninger then conducts a recross examination, focusing on Mr. Flatley's technical understanding of email clients like Outlook and Mail.

Legal document
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