Honor
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
CAC3PARC
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion regarding the procedural aspects of presenting evidence, including a physical binder... | courthouse | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Maguire by MS. MOE regarding evidence seized from a residence. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A procedural argument in court regarding the method of presenting evidence to a jury. An unnamed ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court hearing | An attorney (CAC3PARC) presents a legal argument to a judge regarding the case of Mr. Parse. The ... | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018233.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on the logistics of presenting evidence, including whether to provide a paper binder to the court and how a video will be displayed in the main courtroom but not in an overflow room. The judge gives instructions to ensure the public can view exhibits after the video is shown.
DOJ-OGR-00018104.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the judge ('your Honor') about the admissibility of photographic evidence, specifically Government Exhibit 250. He describes the photo as depicting Jeffrey Epstein with a young, 'prepubescent' girl and contends it is irrelevant and prejudicial, similar to other photos that were already excluded.
DOJ-OGR-00017943.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys (Ms. Pomerantz, Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge regarding a question posed to a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The judge clarifies why a specific question about grooming and sexual gratification was objected to and ultimately precluded, citing the narrow basis for excluding testimony on the theory of 'grooming by proxy'.
DOJ-OGR-00017864.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a portion of the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Besselsen, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. During the testimony, Mr. Rohrbach directs the witness and the jury to review two pieces of evidence, Government Exhibit 743 and Defense Exhibit J-4, with no objection from the opposing counsel, Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00017819.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Moe, during a recess. Ms. Sternheim raises a potential issue with the government's next witness, Matt, noting that his prior statements regarding a conversation with another individual, Jane, do not fully align with the direct examination. This suggests a potential challenge to the witness's credibility or the consistency of his testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00014928.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. Dr. Rocchio is questioned about an article and states that he disagrees with its conclusions. He specifically identifies a highlighted portion of the text as being incomplete.
DOJ-OGR-00008348.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a court proceeding dated December 10, 2021, discussing jury instructions related to New Mexico law concerning illegal sexual activity. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach deliberate on how to present evidence and frame the charges for the jury, with the Court indicating it will refine the instructions for clarity. The discussion highlights the legal interpretation of 'force or coercion' in the context of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00001071.jpg
This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, in which an attorney, Mr. Cohen, argues that his client's detention has limited his access to her, making it difficult to gather financial information. He contends it is unreasonable for Pretrial Services to expect his client to recall details of a real estate transaction offhand, citing complications from the COVID crisis and legal precedents. Mr. Cohen also informs the court that the government requires until November to complete discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00000552.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. In it, the judge (THE COURT) raises a concern based on a New York Post article suggesting Mr. Epstein was not in compliance with his sex offender registration obligations in New York. A speaker, Mr. Weinberg, responds that while he is aware of the story, Mr. Epstein has never been officially informed of any violation by New York authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00000531.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A representative for the government argues against the defendant's legal claims, stating a non-prosecution agreement is not applicable and that the case will proceed, and urges the court to order the defendant's detention. Following the government's statement, a lawyer named Mr. Weinberg begins to address the court.
DOJ-OGR-00000520.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. In the transcript, a government lawyer, Mr. Rossmiller, argues before a judge for the pretrial detention of a defendant, citing an extraordinary risk of flight and danger to the community. Rossmiller states that for the sex trafficking offense charged, there is a legal presumption for detention which the defendant has not provided any information to rebut.
DOJ-OGR-00018554.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Maguire, by an attorney, Ms. Moe. The questioning concerns Government Exhibit 925, a photograph of binders containing photo thumbnails and CDs that were found in a closet of a residence. The witness confirms these items were seized as evidence during a search and labeled as evidence Item 1B-19.
DOJ-OGR-00018425.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on her participation in a chat group with other women who claimed abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, her contact with Virginia Roberts, and whether they share the same attorney, Bradley Edwards. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, successfully objects to a line of questioning on the grounds of hearsay.
DOJ-OGR-00019138.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural debate between legal counsel and a judge. An unnamed attorney objects to Ms. Moe's proposal to have a witness, Mr. Buscemi, present exhibits to the jury, arguing it prevents substantive cross-examination and resembles a closing argument. Ms. Moe defends the method as a streamlined process to show the jury evidence they haven't yet seen.
DOJ-OGR-00019112.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on Rodgers' 30-year employment with Mr. Epstein, establishing that Rodgers never witnessed any behavior from Ghislaine that suggested she was helping Epstein abuse underage girls. Rodgers also confirms he was comfortable with his own teenage daughter spending time with Ghislaine.
DOJ-OGR-00016586.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It records the beginning of the direct examination of Elizabeth Loftus, a professor and scientist, who was called as a witness by the defense. The transcript includes exchanges between Ms. Sternheim (defense counsel), Mr. Everdell, and the presiding Judge, as Professor Loftus starts to explain her role to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016547.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from the direct examination of Ms. Espinosa on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses on an individual named Jane, her relationship as Jeffrey's goddaughter, and how this status influenced her treatment in 'the office' where her mother also worked. The examination also inquires about Jane's siblings and the extent of contact between Jane's mother and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013173.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger about a potential violation of a witness sequestration order. The judge instructs the attorneys to brief the issue and schedules further discussion on whether a potential witness named Brian will testify.
DOJ-OGR-00013826.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the conclusion of a witness's testimony, where counsel (Ms. Menninger) confirms the witness was in Germany at the same time a person named Annie was in Thailand. After the witness is excused, another counsel (Ms. Moe) informs the court that the government rests its case.
DOJ-OGR-00013687.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer (Maria), by an attorney, Ms. Menninger, regarding an undated entry about an upcoming trip to New York. The witness confirms her excitement about seeing her sister and meeting a person named Epstein, who had purchased a ticket for her.
DOJ-OGR-00013439.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes Mr. Rodgers' employment history as a pilot for Jeffrey Epstein, beginning in 1991, and confirms that he hired his friend, Larry Visoski, as a co-pilot. The transcript clarifies that their roles reversed in late 2004, with Visoski becoming chief pilot, and that Rodgers continued to work for Epstein until 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00013336.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures the cross-examination of a witness named Shawn. Shawn denies having any conversations with his ex-partner, Carolyn, about Jeffrey Epstein or his testimony. A new line of questioning begins by Mr. Pagliuca, focusing on whether Shawn recalls visiting a house in Palm Beach in 2002.
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal argument in court. A lawyer is addressing a judge ('your Honor') about whether a mistake made by a 'Mr. Parse' constituted defrauding the government. The core of the argument revolves around a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad and whether it can be used to infer prejudice, with the lawyer citing Rule 606(b) and a Third Circuit case to argue against its use for that purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00010005.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 22, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on whether she understood certain information about a potential juror to be significant, particularly to a Judge Pauley. The transcript includes objections from attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman, and rulings from the presiding judge.
DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, involving an individual named Mr. Parse accused of defrauding the government. An attorney, identified as CAC3PARC, argues before a judge about the nature of a mistake made in the case and, more significantly, about the interpretation of a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad. The attorney contends that under Rule 606(b) and precedent from a Third Circuit case, the note cannot be used to infer prejudice.
Cross-examination regarding a trip entry, including 'Phan...
A cross-examination of A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger, confirming details from a trip entry, including attending 'Phantom of the Opera', visiting Mr. Epstein's home, meeting Maria's boyfriend, and cross-country skiing. Ms. Pomerantz interjects to address 'Your Honor'.
Cross-examination regarding a trip entry, including 'Phan...
A cross-examination of A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger, confirming details from a trip entry, including attending 'Phantom of the Opera', visiting Mr. Epstein's home, meeting Maria's boyfriend, and cross-country skiing. Ms. Pomerantz interjects to address 'Your Honor'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity