MS. MENNINGER
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
144 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Co counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Meder
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| 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-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-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-00017785.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on her past as a performer, confirming she was an actor and singer from middle school, performed widely, and had a professional agent around her senior year of high school. The page ends with a statement from Ms. Menninger, likely an attorney, requesting to show something to the witness.
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-00017781.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney questions Jane about a past lawsuit allegedly filed by her and her mother against her teacher for pulling her hair, which Jane denies knowing about. Another attorney, Ms. Menninger, discusses the presentation of certified court exhibits (J-7, J-8, J-9) with the judge to clarify the record.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00017761.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, requests permission from the judge to question a witness about communications she may have had with her own attorney regarding cooperation with the government and testifying at the trial. The judge clarifies the precise wording of the question to be posed to the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017760.jpg
This document is page 151 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange between Ms. Menninger and the Court regarding a proffer and a 40-minute timeline, immediately followed by a luncheon recess. The header indicates the proceedings involved the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00017758.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of a settlement agreement. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that the document is relevant to show the amount of money a witness named Jane received, while the opposing counsel and the Court discuss whether the document's complex legal language would be unfairly prejudicial or confusing to the jury. The Court compares the document's complexity to other legal agreements, like cooperation agreements, that are regularly shown to juries.
DOJ-OGR-00017757.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of 'Exhibit J-40'. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, moves to admit the document, which concerns a prior civil settlement involving the witness, Jane, under seal. Opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, objects on legal grounds, arguing the information is already on record. The judge postpones the discussion until after a lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00017753.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane' by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on Jane's civil lawsuits filed in January 2020 against Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's estate with the assistance of attorney Mr. Glassman.
Exhibits/Redactions
Email sent regarding exhibits/redactions.
Exhibits J-8/9 and J-15
Discussions regarding the release and redaction of specific defense exhibits.
Request for exhibits
Media requests for the exhibits mentioned.
Travel history
Ms. Menninger asked Jane about an international trip which Jane did not remember.
3509-008, page five
Defense attorney asks witness to read a specific paragraph from a document to refresh recollection.
Redactions (implied)
Regarding exhibits and redactions.
Clarification of legal standard
Explaining the punctuation in a hypothetical question and clarifying that the flight must be for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.
Admissibility of hearsay
Agreement regarding the exclusion of Maria Farmer's hearsay statements.
Encounters with Epstein in New York
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.
Communication efforts
Ms. Menninger offers to email the judge's chambers with the dates and times of communication efforts to create a factual record.
Evidence exhibit 332B
Ms. Comey states she told Ms. Menninger 'the other day' that they were not planning to offer exhibit 332B.
Court proceedings
Ms. Menninger reports to the court that "Ms. Moe and I spoke briefly."
Cross-examination regarding a trip to New Mexico and a me...
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.
Scheduling
Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.
Application
Application received at 11:54, missing a proposed order.
Cross-examination regarding evidence
Questioning regarding the submission of a journal (Exhibit 604) to the government.
Closing Argument (Summation)
Defense attorney arguing against the credibility of witness Mr. Alessi and introducing the testimony of Dr. Loftus.
Cross Examination
Legal examination in court
Cross-examination and admission of evidence
Discussion regarding the admission of Exhibit AF1 (Bates AFarmer10472), a journal page, into evidence without redactions.
Impeachment arguments
Discussion regarding the permissibility of arguing impeachment based on read-aloud quotes during closing arguments.
Rule 16 and Impeachment Evidence
Argument regarding whether impeachment documents must be disclosed to the prosecution prior to use.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding settlement payout and specific abuse allegations.
Trial Schedule
Discussion regarding the timing of closing arguments, jury lunch, and the start of deliberations.
Introduction of Exhibit AF1
Discussion regarding the location of exhibits in a binder and the introduction of a specific page from a journal as evidence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity