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-00018580.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Meder. The witness testifies about reviewing an image from a CD related to the 'Epstein and Maxwell investigation' and identifies both Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein as the individuals depicted in Government Exhibit 304. The proceedings are then adjourned for the day by the judge.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018579.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Meder by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Ms. Comey requests and receives permission from the court for the witness to use Government Exhibit 304, a CD, as a memory aid during testimony, despite a potential hearsay concern raised by opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger. The transcript concludes with Ms. Comey asking a Ms. Drescher to display the exhibit.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018575.jpg

This court transcript excerpt from August 10, 2022, captures the transition between witnesses in a trial. After Agent Maguire is excused, the court and counsel briefly discuss whether to begin with a new witness, Kimberly Meder, due to the late hour. They decide to proceed, and Ms. Meder is called by the government, sworn in, and provides her name for the record.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016907.jpg

This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues that prior testimony from Jeffrey Epstein regarding his move to 9 East 71st Street (which he stated was around 1996) is relevant because a witness named 'Jane' claimed he lived there in 1994. The Court sustains an objection to this line of argument, referencing a prior ruling regarding the 'motive to develop' testimony.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016905.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Ms. Menninger, and the court. The discussion concerns the materiality of when Mr. Epstein moved from his 69th Street home to 71st Street and the subsequent identification of specific documents (Z-7, Z-8, Z-9, Z-10) and their relevant sections for admission into evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016904.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning Jeffrey Epstein's lease violations and residency at a specific property in late 1995 and early 1996. She references a witness hired in December 1995 who confirmed Epstein was not living at the property for the first three weeks of his employment.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016901.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a statement about when Mr. Epstein abandoned a property is not a settled fact. She contends that defense witnesses could have testified that Epstein lived on East 71st Street prior to 1996, contradicting the idea he abandoned it then, and references a prior opinion by Judge Chin to support her argument that the facts are disputable. The transcript ends with the presiding judge asking to see the document under discussion.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016898.jpg

This document is a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger requests the court take judicial notice of a 1996 case (96 CV 8307) involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ivan Fisher to establish facts regarding Epstein's residences. The text reveals that Epstein's residence at East 69th Street was leased from the U.S. Government (who seized it from the government of Iran) starting in 1992, a detail used to challenge the timeline of a witness named 'Jane' regarding which property she visited between 1994 and 1996.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016897.jpg

This document is a transcript page from the afternoon session of the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey informs the court that stipulations have been reached and the case is nearing conclusion, though one disputed issue remains. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger begins to address the court regarding this disputed fact.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016882.jpg

This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely Ghislaine Maxwell's trial). Attorney Mr. Everdell is explaining to the Court why a potential witness was not disclosed earlier, stating they were still verifying the witness's utility. They discuss '26.2 material' (Jencks Act material) and reference a conversation from 'yesterday' (December 16th) regarding the trial schedule, aiming for closing arguments on the following Monday.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016880.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim, and Moe). The discussion clarifies that a 'short matter' scheduled for the following Monday is the testimony of a witness from London. A potential issue is raised by Ms. Moe, who states that the witness's name was not on the witness list provided to the government.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016879.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, clarifies for the record that discovery materials related to an individual named Jane contain very few names (five or fewer), not hundreds. The court then questions another attorney, Ms. Menninger, about the contact information for a witness, who confirms the witness was personally served and given the necessary contact details.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016878.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the timing of the judge's recent ruling on an application, the failure to enforce a subpoena in a timely manner, and the scope of materials produced as evidence. The attorneys offer to provide further documentation to create a clear factual record for the court's determination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016877.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger (defense) explains the delay in reviewing materials due to the volume of '3500 material,' mentioning approximately 500 nontestifying witnesses. The Court questions why an application to enforce a subpoena for a potential defense witness was filed late at night (11:54) despite the witness being disclosed for months.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016876.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe) regarding witness testimony. Ms. Menninger explains why the defense did not seek anonymity for a witness, while Ms. Moe argues they had other options. The Court notes that the defense has been aware since October of another individual, Kelly, who was implicated by a witness named Jane in "sexualized massages" and subsequently noticed as a defense witness.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016875.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar or discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding '3500 material' (discovery) received on October 11th. The conversation focuses on the scope of testimony concerning a person named 'Kelly,' alleged involvement in massages, and the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016874.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) where defense attorney Ms. Menninger discusses efforts to subpoena a witness. The defense argues that a victim referred to as 'Jane' previously told the government that a woman named 'Kelly' could corroborate her story. The Judge requests specific details regarding the defense team's attempts to contact this witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016872.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It records the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Ms. Healy, the dismissal of the jury for lunch, and a subsequent procedural discussion regarding the release of AUSA Alex Rossmiller from a defense subpoena.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016870.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Healy by attorney Ms. Comey. The questioning establishes that the witness worked in Jeffrey Epstein's office, but not his homes, and probes her knowledge of his associates and other potential employees from the late 1990s.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016860.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures the beginning of the direct examination of a defense witness, Michelle Healy, by attorney Ms. Menninger. During the testimony, Ms. Healy states that she is a 47-year-old housewife from Dallas, Texas, and is married to an architect.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016810.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of Agent Young by attorney Ms. Comey. The questioning reveals that Agent Young interviewed an individual named 'Jane' about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and that Jane's disclosures were a gradual process over multiple meetings rather than a single event. The transcript also includes a sustained objection by another attorney, Ms. Menninger, regarding the scope of the questioning.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016380.jpg

This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of witness A. Farmer, filed on August 10, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The questioning focuses on a form submitted to the victims' compensation program where the witness identified locations of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Specific locations discussed include a movie theater in New York, New York City generally, and New Mexico.

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

DOJ-OGR-00016376.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer. The questioning focuses on a substantial claim submitted by the witness's attorneys to the Epstein Victims Compensation Program on June 26, 2020. This submission occurred approximately one month after the witness had spoken with the government.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016374.jpg

This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Farmer about potential inconsistencies in her statements to the government and her mother regarding an alleged sexual assault, specifically about feeling an erect penis and whether she said she was "not raped". Another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, repeatedly objects to the line of questioning, and the court sustains the objections.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016371.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, documenting the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on a prior statement Farmer made to government agents on May 9, 2020, regarding a massage involving Epstein; the defense attempts to establish that Farmer previously characterized the event as 'awkward and uncomfortable' but 'not explicitly sexual,' which the witness disputes as being the agents' notes rather than her exact words. The witness confirms she felt Epstein could see her during the massage.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
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