Jane's attorney
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
JANE
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal case | A civil case where the witness ('Jane') was a party, represented by an attorney, and demanded money. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Lawsuit signed by Jane's attorney. | Unknown | View |
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-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-00017708.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 identified as 'Jane' is being cross-examined about her recollection of attending 'The Lion King' on Broadway with Jeffrey Epstein. Jane confirms that they saw the show (not the movie), sat in mezzanine seats, and that Epstein bragged about securing the seats because he knew the director.
DOJ-OGR-00008381.jpg
This legal document presents an argument to the Court to preclude the testimony of Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman. The core argument is that Glassman's settlement negotiations with an entity called EVCP cannot be used to impeach a witness named Jane, because she testified she was unaware of these negotiations. Allowing this testimony would be improper impeachment and more prejudicial than probative.
DOJ-OGR-00018856.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about scheduling a future court session, with the judge suggesting evening or weekend dates to avoid conflicting with the jury. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, also makes a formal request to the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to communicate about her testimony with another witness, who is Jane's younger sibling and is also under subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00018603.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a conversation between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the Court regarding potential witness coaching. The discussion centers on a conversation between two siblings about one's unpleasant experience testifying, prompting the judge to inquire about whether witnesses were properly instructed not to discuss their testimony with others. Ms. Moe also mentions speaking with the witness's (Jane's) attorney after her testimony.
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.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00013018.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between attorney Ms. Moe and the judge regarding a conversation between two siblings, one of whom was a witness named Jane. Ms. Moe explains that one sibling described her court testimony as an 'unpleasant experience' to the other. The judge inquires about whether the government had instructed witnesses not to discuss testimony, and Ms. Moe recounts her own conversation with Jane's attorney on the matter.
Statement of age
Filing stating Jane was 13.
Expected outcome in the case
Statement about the attorney's conversation with Jane regarding her expected outcome.
Civil litigation compensation/outcome
Attorney-client communication regarding expected outcomes.
Recollection of events
Communication regarding Jane seeing The Lion King Broadway show (not the movie) and details about seating/Epstein.
Reminder about an issue
Ms. Moe stated she is 'Happy to do that this evening.'
Civil Lawsuit
Lawsuit signed by attorney.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity