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 |
EFTA00010102.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 18, 2021, between an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the Chambers of Judge Alison J. Nathan. The correspondence concerns a redaction error in a legal filing (Dkt. No. 453) related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, where a witness's name was inadvertently exposed. The Government requested the removal of the document from the electronic docket (ECF) and subsequently submitted a corrected version.
EFTA00009897.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 21, 2021, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and the Chambers of Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The correspondence details the attendance plans for victims and their counsel at an upcoming arraignment, specifically noting that Victim-2 will attend by phone while her attorneys, David Boies and Sigrid McCawley, will attend in person. It also confirms that four attorneys will appear on behalf of the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00000152.tif
This document is a legal opinion or court order concerning pretrial proceedings related to Maxwell. It addresses motions in limine, pretrial disclosures, and scheduling, citing legal precedents like United States v. Thompson and United States v. Percevault. The Court sets a schedule for disclosures and notes that the S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00018368.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named 'Kate,' regarding the admission of her driver's license (Government Exhibit 18) under seal to protect her anonymity. Kate testifies that she finished 'some high school' and currently works with women suffering from trauma and substance use disorder.
DOJ-OGR-00018363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing proceedings related to evidence. The court admits 'Defendant's Trial Exhibit B' based on a prior stipulation regarding items found at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home in 2005. Following this, the government, represented by Ms. Comey, moves to enter a large number of redacted exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018356.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding the scope of cross-examination. The government objects to identifying a specific lawyer representing a witness to avoid implying a 'broader conspiracy,' and the Judge rules on what questions are permissible before deciding not to seal the discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00018354.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar conference where prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach objects to the defense's intention to ask the upcoming witness, 'Kate,' to identify her personal counsel in the courtroom. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that if a witness brings counsel for support, it is relevant and 'fair game' for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018347.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) discussing the admissibility of photographic evidence of a massage room. The court rules that structural features like bookcases are admissible to corroborate the witness 'Jane's' testimony regarding the room's layout, but moveable objects like pictures on the wall must be redacted because Jane did not recall them and they risk prejudice. The text references 'Jane' testifying that she was abused in that room.
DOJ-OGR-00018341.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which a judge instructs a jury about an upcoming witness's testimony. The judge clarifies that because the witness was over the age of consent, her alleged sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein was not illegal under the indictment, and she is not considered a victim in this case. The jury is strictly forbidden from using this testimony to convict the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, or to infer anything about the character or criminal propensity of either Epstein or Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion at the end of a hearing where Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a witness list for the upcoming week. Prosecutor Ms. Comey agrees to provide the list to the Defense and the Court by the end of the day on Saturday. The Court then adjourns the proceedings until December 6, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018313.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Mr. Parkinson, who is excused by the court to catch a flight. Subsequently, the government (represented by Ms. Comey) calls Sergeant Michael Dawson as a witness, who is sworn in and begins his direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018311.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of Mr. Parkinson by attorney Mr. Everdell in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on a specific photograph of an unidentified woman found during a search of Jeffrey Epstein's house conducted by Parkinson. Everdell establishes that Parkinson did not recall finding, nor did the government present, any other photographs or video evidence of this specific woman from the search.
DOJ-OGR-00018277.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding the relevance of photographs, prior testimony by Jane, and the submission of evidence binders for upcoming witnesses. The Court also provides a reminder to Ms. Comey about microphone usage.
DOJ-OGR-00018265.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Witness Mr. Parkinson is being questioned by prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the layout of Jeffrey Epstein's property at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The testimony identifies Government Exhibits 276, 277, and 278 as depicting the master bedroom and master shower room on the second floor. The government offers Exhibit 278 under seal to protect third-party privacy before the court breaks for a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00018258.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson. The testimony concerns photographs (Government Exhibits 252, 253, and 254) depicting the interior of 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The exhibits are admitted into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00018225.jpg
This document is page 124 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey questions witness Mr. Parkinson about photographic exhibits (GX 264-267) depicting various angles of a kitchen containing an island with books and appliances. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, offers no objection to the exhibits, which are subsequently admitted by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00018116.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Mr. Everdell) argue over the admissibility and context of photos found on a bookshelf, which include images of 'Jane' and nude females. There is a specific dispute over Jane's age at the time (15 vs 19), after which the discussion shifts to the introduction of evidence (video, photos) through a witness named Mr. Parkinson.
DOJ-OGR-00018111.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against the admissibility or weight of photographs taken during a 2005 walk-through of an Epstein residence, noting that witness Juan Alessi left in 2002 and witness 'Jane' only gave general descriptions of art, not specific identifications of the photos in question. The defense contends there is no testimony placing specific photos on the wall during the time relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00018110.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of video evidence. An attorney, Ms. Comey, argues that a video showing a photograph in the context of a master bedroom shared by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein should be admitted. The Court overrules an objection, agreeing that the video's context makes it different from the photograph in isolation and that it corroborates other testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018068.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions witness Mr. Alessi regarding 'Exhibit 52' (a book/directory), establishing that Alessi had not seen the object for 19 years since leaving Epstein's employment and could not account for its chain of custody during that time. The Judge also sustains an objection regarding the foundation of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018055.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admission of Exhibit 52 (and sub-exhibits A, D, E, F, G, H) in redacted form. The header indicates this occurred during the direct examination of witness Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00017995.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of Mr. Alessi by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on identifying the layout of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach property, specifically describing the 'cabana' or 'pool house' where Epstein's desk, a couch, and stereo equipment were located. Government's Exhibit 299 (GX-299), a depiction of the property layout, was admitted into evidence without objection from the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00017959.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning establishes that Rocchio has a contract with the government for up to $45,000, has not reviewed witness statements or performed psychological evaluations, and is not offering opinions on the case's events or witness credibility. The witness confirms their limited information comes exclusively from government lawyers.
DOJ-OGR-00017944.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor Pomerantz, and Defense Attorney Pagliuca regarding a misunderstanding of a court order, followed by a recess. After the recess, Ms. Pomerantz raises an issue regarding Mr. Pagliuca's intent to cross-examine expert witness Dr. Rocchio on topics outside her direct testimony, specifically mentioning the 'halo effect' and 'suggestive memory'.
DOJ-OGR-00017890.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument regarding the admissibility of a document. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues against an objection from defense counsel, stating that the document qualifies as an 'adoptive business record' of a school because it was integrated into their files and relied upon, despite a witness's testimony questioning its reliability. The judge ultimately overrules the objection, allowing the document into evidence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity