The government
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
24
Very Strong
|
70 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Representative |
17
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
68 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
65 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Representative |
12
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
12
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
11
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
18 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
victims
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Witness prosecution |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Witness prosecution |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings/Trial discussions | Courtroom (referenced by Tr... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Modification of a Protective Order | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal Argument regarding NPA applicability | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Limited Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing Arguments and Jury Charge | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Modification of Protective Order | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Boies Schiller began producing materials not covered by protective orders in response to subpoenas. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial Testimony (Trial Tr. at 2518–22) | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Submission of evidence (Journal) | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Anticipated trial where evidence regarding victims and terms like 'rape' will be used. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Materials | Court (Southern District of... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's motion to unseal testimony and exhibits | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Entry of Non-Prosecution Agreement | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Previous hearing where government touted documentary evidence. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Three bail renewal hearings | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proffer session | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing regarding requested discovery | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transfer of legal materials | Court / MDC | View |
| N/A | N/A | The government served a redacted party with a subpoena to produce [redacted items]. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal defense against charges | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal indictment alleging Ms. Maxwell committed perjury. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness preparation for trial where the government asked McHugh to review exhibits. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government charged Jeffrey Epstein with conduct falling within the NPA time scope. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Bail hearing argument. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government secret deal (Non-Prosecution Agreement) | Florida (implied context of... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001148.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Document 100) from case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 28, 2020. It details the procedural history following the defendant's arrest on July 2, 2020, specifically focusing on the July 14, 2020 bail hearing where the defense argued for release based on family ties, offers of private security, and cooperation with the government following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest. The text includes transcripts of defense counsel offering to provide further financial verification and suretor information to satisfy the court's concerns regarding flight risk and financial transparency.
DOJ-OGR-00001144.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal memorandum filed by the government on June 28, 2020. The memorandum is in opposition to a defendant's renewed motion for release in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The contents outline the government's arguments, including the nature of the offense, the strength of the evidence, the defendant's characteristics, and the conditions of confinement.
DOJ-OGR-00001142.jpg
This document is the cover page for Exhibit F, a legal filing in Case 21-770, dated April 1, 2021. It is titled "The Government's Memorandum in Support to the Defendant's Renewed Motion for Release" and is marked as page 1 of 165. The footer contains a Department of Justice (DOJ) tracking number.
DOJ-OGR-00001137.jpg
This document is page 35 of a legal filing (Document 102) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense argues she is not a flight risk and that her current detention at the MDC constitutes 'de facto solitary confinement' under conditions more severe than USP Florence ADMAX, hindering her ability to prepare her defense. It claims prison wardens have noted the unprecedented nature of her restrictive regime.
DOJ-OGR-00001134.jpg
This document is page 32 of a legal filing (likely a defense motion) dated January 25, 2021, arguing that discovery evidence fails to implicate Ghislaine Maxwell. The text asserts there are no contemporaneous records (emails, texts, police reports) from 1994-1997 linking her to the alleged conspiracy and claims existing police reports are exculpatory. Significant portions of the arguments are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00001132.jpg
This document is page 30 of a defense filing (Document 197) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 14, 2020. The defense argues that despite the government's initial claims of 'strong' evidence backed by flight logs and diaries, the discovery produced (over 1.2 million documents) contains 'no meaningful documentary corroboration' of the allegations for the indictment period of 1994-1997. The text notes that the majority of evidence produced relates to the 2000s and 2010s, and mentions electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00001126.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was not attempting to evade arrest but was following established security protocols in response to what her security guard mistakenly identified as an ambush by the press. It further explains that a cellphone was wrapped in tin foil to prevent press access after a court inadvertently released her number, not to evade law enforcement, citing her continued use of the phone and ownership of another, uncovered primary phone as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001124.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, argues that she was not a flight risk prior to her arrest. It asserts that she intentionally moved to New Hampshire to be within driving distance of New York prosecutors and that her legal counsel was in regular, documented contact with the government for months. The filing aims to counter the government's portrayal of her as a fugitive by demonstrating her intent to remain in the U.S. and face any potential charges.
DOJ-OGR-00001119.jpg
This page from a defense filing argues for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail, citing a 'Macalvins report' to refute Government claims that her finances are opaque. The defense states that Maxwell and her spouse have total assets of approximately $22.5 million, which they offer as the bond amount, and asserts she has properly filed all FBAR and tax documents. A footnote heavily redacts the name of a specific bank involved in her finances.
DOJ-OGR-00001115.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for Ms. Maxwell's release on a $22.5 million bond. It details that her spouse has agreed to post three properties worth approximately $8 million as security, and that numerous family members, friends, and a security company are also prepared to sign significant bonds. The document emphasizes the severe financial hardship these sureties would face if Ms. Maxwell were to violate her bail conditions, using the example of one surety who would post her only asset, a $1.5 million property described as her 'only nest-egg for retirement'.
DOJ-OGR-00001107.jpg
This legal document argues for Ms. Maxwell to be released on restrictive bail. Her defense contends that the government's case lacks corroborating evidence, relies on old testimony, and that her oppressive confinement conditions at the MDC, including a COVID-19 outbreak, are unjust and impede her ability to prepare her defense. The filing also asserts she is not a flight risk, citing expert opinions on extradition from the UK and France.
DOJ-OGR-00001103.jpg
This document is the preliminary statement of a legal memorandum filed on December 14, 2020, supporting Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail. It outlines new information not present at her initial hearing, including details on family ties in the US, a financial report covering her and her spouse, extradition waivers for the UK and France, and arguments against flight risk. Maxwell asserts her innocence, claims the government's case relies on uncorroborated testimony from 25 years ago, and requests release to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001090.jpg
This legal document, dated April 1, 2021, is a court's ruling regarding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The court concludes that Ms. Maxwell is a substantial flight risk and that the government has met its burden to show that no conditions of release would be sufficient. The court also finds her proposed bail package, secured by a foreign property worth several million dollars, to be insufficient, citing her failure to provide a full accounting of her financial situation.
DOJ-OGR-00001089.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (dated April 1, 2021) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court is addressing a defense argument for release, distinguishing Maxwell's case from 'United States v. Friedman.' The judge notes that while Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, she did not provide her whereabouts and the circumstances of her arrest suggest she may have been hiding, driven by a realization of the severity of the charges and potential sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00001083.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 79 of the proceeding, page 142 of the filing) dated April 1, 2021, related to Case 21-770 involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense attorney concludes arguments for release on strict bail conditions, asserting the government failed to carry its burden. The Court then begins to deliver a ruling, outlining the legal standards for detention versus bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, and stating that high-profile status or wealth should not influence the application of the law.
DOJ-OGR-00001080.jpg
This court transcript from April 1, 2021, details a discussion between The Court and Ms. Moe, representing the government, regarding the legal relevance of victim statements in a bail analysis. Following a point raised by Mr. Cohen, The Court seeks the government's position. Ms. Moe clarifies that while victims have a right to participate under the Crime Victims Rights Act, their statements are not part of the government's motion, and their substance should not be considered by the court for the bail analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00001079.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, from Case 21-770 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that the defendant poses a flight risk and has failed to meet the burden of production to rebut the presumption of detention, citing recommendations from Pretrial Services and victims' requests. The Judge questions Ms. Moe regarding defense attorney Mr. Cohen's arguments about the government's burden of proof regarding flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001077.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770, dated April 1, 2021) recording an argument against granting bail to the defendant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell). The speaker argues that the defendant has been untruthful about her finances, claiming ignorance of her own wealth ('millions of dollars'), and poses a flight risk involving potential foreign travel documents. The prosecution explicitly compares her situation to the case of Jeffrey Epstein, citing Judge Berman's decision to deny Epstein bail based on flight risk and dangerousness.
DOJ-OGR-00001076.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues against the notion that the defendant would have surrendered if asked. The speaker asserts the government arrested the defendant due to a serious flight risk and points to the defense counsel's uncooperative behavior in a separate civil case as further evidence of untrustworthiness. The speaker concludes by noting the lack of a substantive response regarding the defendant's finances.
DOJ-OGR-00001074.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, is making a concluding argument to a judge to grant bail for his client. He argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proving the client is a flight risk, distinguishing the current case from others and citing a precedent from Judge Raggi in the Sabhnani case before formally requesting the court to grant bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001073.jpg
A page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, featuring arguments by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney. The attorney argues that the government's citations of 'dangerousness cases' are irrelevant to Maxwell's situation and emphasizes the impossibility of preparing for trial while Maxwell is detained during the COVID-19 crisis, citing lack of in-person access to the client due to BOP restrictions. The Judge attempts to interject at the bottom of the page.
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-00001070.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, featuring defense attorney Mr. Cohen addressing the Court. Cohen requests more time to arrange sureties for a bail package, citing extreme difficulties caused by his client's (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell) harsh detention conditions at the MDC. He describes these conditions as equivalent to solitary confinement, including constant lighting, isolation, lack of showers, and confiscation of legal materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001069.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues for bail, claiming the government's indictment of conduct from 1994-1997 is tactical and lacks physical evidence like tapes or video. He asserts that the client has been kept in custody 'by design' and references the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00001065.jpg
This document is a court transcript in which an attorney refutes the government's allegations about their client's finances. The attorney argues the government has exaggerated the number of bank accounts, explains a $500,000 transfer as a maturing bond, and attributes another large transfer to the financial fallout their client experienced after Mr. Epstein's arrest.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity