United States
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Pirro
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Pizarro
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Culbertson
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Patrick Ho
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Nixon
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Chen
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Pappas
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
TRACY
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Thai
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Estrada
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Cirillo
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Di Bella
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
DeFilippo
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Stein
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Diehl
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Elsie Church
|
Legal representative |
7
|
1 | |
|
location
South Korea
|
Business associate |
7
|
1 | |
|
location
Canada
|
International relations |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
EST
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
Iran
|
Adversarial diplomatic |
6
|
2 | |
|
location
ISRAEL
|
Strategic alliance |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Lara Pomerantz
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Modification of the Non-Prosecution Agreement | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of the Syrian situation, including the legitimacy of Mr. Assad, international response... | Global political context, U... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Clarification of provisions in paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement regarding the selecti... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Assignment of Independent Third-Party | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-prosecution agreement (NPA) intended for broad, complete resolution of matters, including Eps... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) entered into by the United States Attorney's Office, Southern Dis... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Agreement regarding Epstein's charges, sentencing, and victim representation. Includes terms for ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | War with Iran / U.S.-led attack | Iran | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation and execution of a plea agreement | Eleventh Circuit | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cold War | Global | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement execution | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein agrees to plea deal (NPA) for 18 months imprisonment. | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential Iranian nuclear targeting of US logistics hubs. | Middle East / Bahrain | View |
| N/A | N/A | Selection of attorney representative for victims | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Public protests and Mubarak's time of need | Cairo, Egypt | View |
| N/A | N/A | Suspension of federal Grand Jury investigation. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | US shipment of battery-operated TV sets to Pacific islands. | Pacific Ocean islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hypothetical conflict/coalition warfare between US and Iran | Middle East | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential U.S. attack on Iran | Iran | View |
| N/A | N/A | Suspension of federal Grand Jury investigation | Federal Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposed peace conference to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. | U.S. | View |
| N/A | N/A | Palestinian bid for full U.N. membership. | United Nations | View |
| N/A | N/A | United States' decision to pursue warmer ties with Tehran. | International | View |
| N/A | Legal case | United States v. Rodriguez, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ | N/A | View |
| N/A | Non-prosecution agreement | Epstein agreed to a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment on two charges, and in return, the ... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017972.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, covering the beginning of the direct examination of a witness, Juan Patricio Alessi. Mr. Alessi, questioned by Ms. Comey on behalf of the Government, provides his personal background information, including his age, his birth and upbringing in Quito, Ecuador, and his early work history after immigrating to the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00015144.jpg
This legal document, page 12 of a court filing from August 11, 2025, discusses the rule of secrecy for grand jury matters as established in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). It outlines the specific, narrow exceptions that permit disclosure to government personnel, other grand juries, and law enforcement, or by court order for judicial proceedings and various government investigations. The document then introduces the 'Special Circumstances' Doctrine, developed by the Second Circuit, which allows for disclosure in cases of unusual historical or public interest, citing several precedent cases.
DOJ-OGR-00015093.jpg
This legal document, page 7 of a court filing, argues against the disclosure of Ghislaine Maxwell's grand jury materials. The author contends that the current 'immense public interest' in the Epstein and Maxwell cases is mere public curiosity about an ongoing case and does not meet the standard of historical importance that justified disclosure in past cases like the Hiss espionage case or the 'In re Biaggi' case. The document distinguishes the current request from precedents where materials were released decades later, after witnesses had died, or when the subject of the testimony themselves requested the release.
DOJ-OGR-00015088.jpg
This legal document discusses the government's attempt to unseal grand jury transcripts, citing historical interest. The document argues that the release would affect Maxwell's privacy interests and that the government's motion should be denied due to ongoing litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing an appeal by Maxwell, who argues that Counts Three and Four of her indictment are untimely. She contends the offenses do not fall under the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283 and that a 2003 amendment to the statute cannot be retroactively applied. The court disagrees on both points, affirming the District Court's decision to deny her motion to dismiss and citing precedent from 'Weingarten v. United States'.
DOJ-OGR-00014863.jpg
This legal document argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts, a principle established since 1789. It contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell, citing legal precedent (Annabi) and statutes (28 U.S.C. § 547 and § 515) to support its position on prosecutorial jurisdiction.
DOJ-OGR-00014855.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion affirming the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell. The background section details Maxwell's role in coordinating and facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of young women and underage girls from 1994 until about 2004. It also mentions Epstein's September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00008568.jpg
This document contains Jury Instruction No. 20 from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 18, 2021. It defines the first element of Count Four: Transportation of an Individual Under the Age of 17 to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity. The text outlines that the Government must prove Maxwell knowingly transported 'Jane' in interstate commerce, noting that personal transportation is not required if she made arrangements (like purchasing tickets), and that the victim's consent is irrelevant to the charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008562.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the first element the government must prove against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity. The instruction defines key legal terms for the jury, including "interstate commerce" and the standard for acting "knowingly," explaining that intent can be inferred from conduct and circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00008560.jpg
This document is page 22 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 13 regarding Count Two: Enticement to Engage in an Illegal Sexual Activity. The text cites Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422, defining the federal crime of knowingly persuading or coercing an individual to travel in interstate commerce to engage in illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00008484.jpg
This document is page 28 of a court filing (Document 562) dated December 17, 2021, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 20 regarding Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity. The text defines the legal requirements for proving Ms. Maxwell knowingly transported the victim 'Jane' across state lines or internationally, noting that personal transportation is not required if she made the arrangements (e.g., buying tickets) and that the victim's consent is irrelevant.
DOJ-OGR-00008478.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 17, 2021, is a jury instruction from a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details Instruction No. 15, which explains the first element the government must prove against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for Count Two: "Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity." The document defines key legal terms for the jury, including "interstate commerce" and the standard for acting "knowingly."
DOJ-OGR-00008476.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court filing (Document 562) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. It outlines Jury Instruction No. 13 regarding 'Count Two,' defining the statute for Enticement to Engage in an Illegal Sexual Activity under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422.
DOJ-OGR-00008375.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 545) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 15, 2021. The text argues against a motion by the defendant to compel victims' attorneys to testify, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 and the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege. The argument emphasizes that forcing counsel to testify against their clients, particularly victims of sexual abuse, is legally disfavored and damaging to the attorney-client relationship.
DOJ-OGR-00001927.jpg
This is page 50 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on December 10, 2020. The defense counsel is arguing for bail by citing legal precedents (Bodmer and Khashoggi) where foreign citizens with extradition concerns or significant wealth were granted bail. The lawyer argues that denying bail simply because France does not extradite citizens would effectively bar all French citizens from bail in the US.
DOJ-OGR-00001624.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request for bail. It contends the defendant is a significant flight risk due to substantial financial resources, international ties, and a lack of connection to the United States. The document also asserts that the COVID-19 pandemic is not a sufficient reason for release, citing several legal precedents from New York district courts that have denied similar applications.
DOJ-OGR-00001621.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The Government contends the defendant is a significant flight risk because she has access to millions of dollars, possesses a multi-million dollar property in the United Kingdom, and is a citizen of a country that does not extradite to the United States. The proposed bail package, secured by foreign property, is deemed meaningless as the U.S. Government cannot easily seize foreign assets.
DOJ-OGR-00001620.jpg
This legal document is a memorandum from the Government arguing against the defendant's bail proposal. The Government asserts the defendant is a flight risk due to her considerable but undisclosed financial resources, her failure to submit a financial affidavit, and her history of lying under oath, specifically citing two counts of perjury from a 2016 civil suit. The document urges the Court to view the defendant as untrustworthy and deny the bail proposal, which it claims offers no security for her appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00001619.jpg
This document is page 9 of a government filing (Document 22) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 13, 2020. The text argues that the defendant is a significant flight risk, citing her demonstrated skill at living in hiding and her steps to conceal herself after Jeffrey Epstein's indictment. The government contends that her decision to remain in the US previously does not mitigate the risk now that she faces a six-count indictment and the reality of a potential lengthy prison sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00001617.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss charges. The Government asserts that the charges are timely under the law, independent of a prior investigation, and that the defendant's claims are baseless. Furthermore, the document argues that the defendant poses an extreme flight risk due to her international ties, financial resources, and French citizenship, noting that France does not extradite its citizens to the U.S.
DOJ-OGR-00001613.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the government arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The government asserts the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her opaque finances, access to extraordinary resources abroad, and demonstrated skill at hiding. The proposed $5 million bond is deemed insufficient because it relies on an overseas property as collateral and six unidentified co-signers whose ability or incentive to pay is unknown.
DOJ-OGR-00001604.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Document 18) from July 10, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail due to COVID-19 risks and the adequacy of the proposed bail package. The defense proposes a $5 million bond co-signed by six individuals (siblings, relatives, friends) and secured by $3.75 million in UK property, along with home detention, GPS monitoring, and travel restrictions to NY districts. A footnote cites *United States v. Boustani* to argue that private security guards are appropriate given Maxwell's circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 10, 2020, is a memorandum arguing against the detention of Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that she has rebutted the presumption of being a flight risk and that the government's argument, based on the potential for a long sentence, oversimplifies the legal standard. The document cites several legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support its position while distinguishing Ms. Maxwell's case from those cited by the prosecution (Alindato-Perez).
DOJ-OGR-00001601.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing arguing for bail for Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly mitigates her flight risk, citing a recent ruling in another case (U.S. v. El Mokadem) where a defendant was released for this reason. The filing also distinguishes Maxwell's case from Epstein's, arguing the government does not allege she poses a current danger to the community, and that her alleged offenses ended in 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00001600.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Document 18) dated July 10, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's assertion that Maxwell is a flight risk, citing her isolation as a protective measure rather than an attempt to flee, and noting that wealth and foreign citizenship alone are insufficient grounds for detention without proof of 'inclination' to flee. It also argues that COVID-19 travel restrictions make flight unlikely and mentions in a footnote that individuals in the media (specifically in the UK) are falsely claiming to have ties to her.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity