DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
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-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-00017788.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on Jane's 20-plus year career as a soap opera actress, specifically listing dramatic plot lines her character has experienced, such as battling cancer, being bullied, and being stalked by serial killers. The line of questioning appears aimed at establishing the witness's familiarity with dramatic or fabricated narratives.
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-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-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-00017748.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 a witness identified as 'Jane.' The questioning focuses on establishing Jane's travel history and age during specific periods, noting she was 15 in April 1996 when she attended a vocal competition in Italy. The witness frequently states she does not remember specific details due to the passage of time and her age at the time of the events.
DOJ-OGR-00017745.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) documenting the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on Jane's communications regarding the Epstein case, specifically confirming that she spoke with Stan Pottinger, her ex-boyfriend Matt, and some family members. The defense attorney attempts to establish that her knowledge of the Epstein case is influenced by these conversations and press coverage.
DOJ-OGR-00017741.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on her hiring of a personal injury lawyer, Mr. Glassman, on September 3, 2019, executed via a contingent fee contract (Exhibit J-14). The defense attempts to ask about Glassman's advertising regarding large verdicts, but an objection regarding hearsay is sustained.
DOJ-OGR-00017713.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane.' Attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane about a prior interview with the government, specifically regarding whether Jane remembered any specific abuse occurring during trips to New Mexico. The witness states she does not recall making the statements presented to her, and the prosecution (Ms. Moe) objects to the form of the questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00017711.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 a witness named 'Jane'. The defense attorney questions Jane about her first trip to New Mexico on a private plane and attempts to impeach her testimony using a government interview record from February 2020 (referenced as document 3509-008). Jane explicitly denies the accuracy of the government record, stating she did not tell them she recalled 'no specific abuse' during that trip.
DOJ-OGR-00017697.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is cross-examining a witness identified as 'Jane' regarding inconsistencies between her current testimony and notes taken by the government during interviews in September 2019 and February 2020. Jane disputes the accuracy of the government's notes regarding her 'first trip to New York,' stating she was never recorded and the notes are 'out of sequence and incorrect.'
DOJ-OGR-00017690.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutors and defense attorneys argue over the admissibility of questions regarding a witness's ('Jane') settlement negotiations, with the defense arguing it proves bias and the prosecution objecting under Rule 408. The Judge intercedes by citing *Manko v. United States*, suggesting that the civil settlement exclusion rule (Rule 408) may not apply in criminal prosecutions.
DOJ-OGR-00017689.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) involving a sidebar discussion between the defense (Ms. Menninger), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Judge. The defense argues for the right to cross-examine a witness named 'Jane' regarding her participation in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program to show bias or financial motivation. Specifically, the defense highlights that Jane was offered $5 million but her lawyer rejected it, filing a motion for reconsideration to demand an 'eight-figure settlement' (at least $10 million).
DOJ-OGR-00017688.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. It captures a procedural argument between attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe before the Court regarding the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane.' The dispute centers on whether a letter written by Jane's civil attorney can be used to refresh her recollection without introducing hearsay into the record.
DOJ-OGR-00017670.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural interruption during the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' regarding a missing exhibit in the jurors' binders. The page concludes with Ms. Menninger resuming questioning about a past event where the witness went to the movies with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017665.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 captures a legal argument between attorney Ms. Moe and the Judge (The Court) regarding the proper procedure for impeaching a witness ('Jane') versus refreshing her recollection using prior statements or documents. Ms. Menninger is mentioned as the attorney questioning the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017661.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on Jane's romantic history (lack of boyfriends in high school versus later years) and social outings with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically mentioning trips to a movie theater near Epstein's Florida home.
DOJ-OGR-00017647.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The defense questions Jane about conversations she had with her older brother, Brian, shortly after a meeting with Epstein in 1994, specifically asking if she mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell's presence or Epstein's comments about her father (Jane claims not to recall these specific details). Jane does confirm speaking to her younger brother about the events over the last 20 years.
DOJ-OGR-00017646.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger regarding Jane's first meeting with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in 1994. The testimony details that Jane was 14 years old, eating ice cream at a picnic table during a break from classes, when she was approached by Maxwell (described as a tall, thin woman with a dog) and subsequently Epstein, who claimed to know Jane's mother.
DOJ-OGR-00017644.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning, likely led by defense attorney Ms. Menninger, focuses on an application (Exhibit J-5) Jane submitted to the Interlochen Arts Camp. Specifically, the defense establishes that Jane checked 'no' on the application regarding whether she was applying for financial aid or expecting any outside funds, scholarships, or grants for her attendance.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity