SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00016890.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe before a judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit land registry records for the Kinnerton Street and Stanhope Mews residences to challenge a witness's testimony about Ms. Maxwell's whereabouts in 1992-1993. In exchange for admitting these records, he suggests the prosecution should be allowed to admit deposition testimony from Ms. Maxwell on the same subject.
DOJ-OGR-00016885.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is addressing the Court regarding the timeline of the defendant's residence at a property on Kinnerton Street in London. Everdell argues that despite a deposition statement where the defendant claimed to be there in 1992 or 1993, she did not own or reside at the property at that time, noting that another couple lived there prior to her purchase.
DOJ-OGR-00016884.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between counsel and the judge regarding the need to establish a person's residency at 44 Kinnerton. Counsel mentions a potential new witness, Mr. Moran, and the judge rules that property ownership documents are admissible as evidence to argue the inference of residency.
DOJ-OGR-00016883.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a dispute between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the late disclosure of a witness. The defense introduces Kevin Moran, the owner of the Nags Head Pub located across the street from Ms. Maxwell's residence at 44 Kinnerton Street, as a witness regarding the timing of her residence there. The prosecution objects, citing a lack of prior notice and missing '26.2 material' (witness statements).
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.
DOJ-OGR-00016881.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The text details a procedural argument between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding the late disclosure of defense witnesses. Specifically, there is confusion distinguishing between a plainclothes police officer from the UK seeking anonymity and another 'short witness' the defense planned to call on Monday.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00016871.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Healy. The questioning establishes that Healy never visited Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach house, only visited the New York residence to drop off documents without entering, visited Zorro Ranch exactly once, and never flew on Epstein's private planes or traveled with him.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00016869.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Healy. The witness denies knowing another 'Michelle' in the office, denies involvement in 'group sexualized massages' with 'Jane' or Jeffrey Epstein, and confirms having been contacted by the FBI regarding the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016862.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Healy, filed on August 10, 2022. Healy testifies about their employment at J. Epstein and Company from approximately 1996 to 1999, where they ran errands. Healy confirms their sister worked there as a receptionist first and identifies Jeffrey Epstein as their boss.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00016858.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin, filed on August 10, 2022. An attorney's question about conversations between Dr. Dubin and Ghislaine Maxwell regarding Jeffrey Epstein is successfully objected to by Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning then shifts to Dr. Dubin's memory, with the witness admitting it is 'very hard to remember anything far back'.
DOJ-OGR-00016855.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of Dr. Dubin. The questioning focuses on Dubin's personal life in the 1990s (birth of a child in 1997) and pivots to her observations of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca raises objections regarding hearsay and vague time frames, which the Court partially sustains, leading the questioner to narrow the focus to the period between 1994 and 2000.
DOJ-OGR-00016847.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a specific flight log entry (916) and a passenger named "Jane." Dr. Dubin states he cannot fully read the entry and does not recall the flight or meeting anyone named Jane on it.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00016387.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 her public identity as a 'survivor of sexual abuse,' her participation in legal proceedings related to a 'Mr. Epstein,' and her association with other accusers and her attorneys at events like press conferences. The witness confirms these activities.
DOJ-OGR-00016382.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer. The questioning focuses on the consistency of her statements regarding alleged incidents in New York and New Mexico, and specifically probes the details she provided to a victims compensation fund about a foot massage involving Mr. Epstein. The witness confirms submitting a narrative claim and affirms the general details of the incidents while not recalling the exact words used.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity