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 | Meeting | Ms. Menninger conferred with the government. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A critique of the district court's decision to deny bail to Ms. Maxwell, arguing the decision was... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A future trial is discussed, where the admissibility of evidence and witness testimony will be de... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A trial for which the defense is preparing. The defense argues that the government's actions are ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation event | Juror No. 11 was displaced during jury deliberations due to a health emergency and replaced with ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The defendant's trial, where the Government proved the charges from the S2 Indictment. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, during which exhibits were admitted. | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Legal disagreement | A disagreement occurred between the Government and the defense (the defendant and her counsel) re... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conviction | Maxwell was convicted for conspiracy, transportation of a minor, and sex trafficking following a ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the scheduling of a trial. The Government states it is prepared to proceed... | Southern District of New York | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial where the Government is requesting special measures for how minor victims and witnesses a... | court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial where witnesses including Jane and Annie testified against the Defendant. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Displacement of Juror No. 11 during jury deliberations due to a health emergency. The juror was r... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A government investigation is mentioned in the context of a party deciding that the benefits of p... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The government took measures to arrest the defendant. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The government objected to the questions proposed by defense counsel, calling them duplicative. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal hearing | The original hearing where the seriousness of the offense and strength of evidence were identified. | Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | The legal proceeding for which this motion is being filed, concerning the rules of evidence and w... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Interview | The witness, Carolyn, was talking to the government prior to this testimony. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding (discovery) | The order sets forth the rules for the disclosure and handling of discovery materials provided by... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Notification | The Government provided notice to six individuals, through their counsel, of their right to be he... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Initial detention hearing for Ms. Maxwell, at which substantial information and voluminous discov... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's counsel received and reviewed voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) produce... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record but consented... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017653.jpg
This document is page 44 (internal pagination 450) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). A witness identified as 'Jane' is under cross-examination regarding an initial meeting ('tea') with Jeffrey Epstein attended by Jane and her mother. The questioning highlights that Jane previously told the government (in Oct 2021) that Maxwell was not present at this specific meeting, and that Epstein referred to his philanthropic activities (scholarships/mentoring) using singular pronouns ('he') rather than plural.
DOJ-OGR-00017652.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on a visit Jane and her mother made to Epstein's house in Palm Beach, confirming they were the only people there for tea by the pool. The witness states she does not recall if Ghislaine Maxwell was present and is also questioned about a conversation she had with the government in October 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00015141.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 11, 2025, details a motion by the Deputy Attorney General to unseal grand jury materials from the Maxwell and Epstein cases. The motion is justified by significant public interest and a directive from the President, following a July 6, 2025, DOJ/FBI memorandum on the Epstein investigation. In response, the court has requested additional information from the government to rule on the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00015136.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, describes Ghislaine Maxwell's role in facilitating sexual abuse with Jeffrey Epstein, including recruiting vulnerable girls and paying them for "massages." It details the timeline of Maxwell's unsuccessful post-trial motions in early 2022, which were largely denied by Judge Nathan. The document concludes by noting Maxwell's sentencing hearing on June 28, 2022, where the government sought a sentence of at least 360 months.
DOJ-OGR-00015132.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing dated August 8, 2025, from the US Department of Justice to Judges Berman and Engelmayer. The document confirms the Government is submitting Epstein grand jury transcripts under seal to Judge Berman, identifying which parts are publicly available, following a similar procedure used for Ghislaine Maxwell's transcripts submitted four days prior. The filing is signed by US Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Deputy AG Todd Blanche, and US Attorney for SDNY Jay Clayton.
DOJ-OGR-00015127.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 6, 2025. The order publicly dockets an additional letter submitted on behalf of a victim regarding the government's request to unseal Maxwell's grand jury materials. The Court notes that no redactions are needed to protect victim privacy interests.
DOJ-OGR-00015122.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 6, 2025, by Neil S. Binder of the law firm Binder & Schwartz, is a submission to the court in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document argues that grand jury transcripts should remain sealed or be released with significant redactions to protect innocent third parties from reputational harm, especially given what is described as relentless and inaccurate press coverage. The core argument is that the privacy interests of these nonparties outweigh the public's interest in disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00015119.jpg
This legal document argues against the unsealing of grand jury materials related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing, made on behalf of unnamed third parties, contends that their privacy interests and the potential for irreparable harm outweigh any public interest in disclosure, citing legal precedent for grand jury secrecy. It also references a similar, recent decision in the Southern District of Florida regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation to support its position that the materials should remain sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00015111.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) addressed to Judge Paul Engelmayer, dated August 6, 2025. It argues for strict protocols and heightened caution regarding the unsealing of grand jury materials to protect the privacy and safety of Epstein and Maxwell's victims, citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Rule 6(e). A significant footnote highlights that several victims have already died by suicide or overdose and argues that a potential pardon would cause irreparable harm.
DOJ-OGR-00015106.jpg
This document is a legal filing (page 4 of an internal document, page 11 of the court filing) arguing for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts with specific conditions. The filing argues that while victim identities (such as Ms. Farmer) must be redacted to protect their privacy and psychological wellbeing, the Court should not 'rubber stamp' redactions for third-party affiliates of Epstein and Maxwell who have not been charged, suggesting such broad redactions would resemble a cover-up. It cites multiple legal precedents regarding privacy interests in sexual abuse cases, including *Giuffre v. Maxwell* and *Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase Bank*.
DOJ-OGR-00015090.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) arguing against the unsealing of grand jury materials. The defense argues that because the grand jury convened only five years prior and Ghislaine Maxwell is still actively litigating her case (including a pending Supreme Court petition), releasing the materials would cause irrevocable reputational harm and taint the legal process. The filing explicitly notes that while Epstein is dead, Maxwell is alive, distinguishing this case from others where secrecy is no longer needed due to the death of principal parties.
DOJ-OGR-00015086.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, dated and filed on August 5, 2025. The order, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, authorizes the Government to file public submissions in a redacted form to protect the privacy interests of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00015082.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 4, 2025, is a submission from the U.S. Government to judges Berman and Engelmayer regarding the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The government discusses legal precedents for grand jury secrecy, notes that Epstein's death is a relevant factor, and details its ongoing efforts to notify all victims before the information is released. The filing is submitted by U.S. Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi, Deputy AG Todd Blanche, and U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.
DOJ-OGR-00015081.jpg
This legal document, dated August 4, 2025, is a letter from the Government to Judges Richard M. Berman and Paul A. Engelmayer. It outlines the submission of grand jury materials related to the Epstein and Maxwell cases, including the dates the respective grand juries met. The Government discusses the process of identifying publicly available information from these materials and presents a legal argument that a 'nolle prosequi' in the Epstein case does not prevent the court from disclosing sealed records.
DOJ-OGR-00015080.jpg
This is a legal filing (Page 2 of 4) dated August 4, 2025, submitted by the Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer regarding the unsealing of documents in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government addresses Court orders requiring them to identify specific grand jury exhibits and transcripts for public release, noting that trial exhibits are presumptively public. The Government requests an extension until August 8, 2025, to advise the Court on its position regarding the unsealing of grand jury exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00015073.jpg
This document is page 2 of a Court Order filed on July 31, 2025, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer orders the identification of specific information in grand jury transcripts and authorizes the Government to publicly file a redacted letter responding to the order. The document also references the civil litigation case Giuffre v. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00015070.jpg
This document is page 9 of a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated July 29, 2025, regarding the unsealing of Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials. The Government confirms it has reviewed the transcripts and notified all but one relevant victim (whom they could not reach) about the motion to unseal. Additionally, the Government is submitting indices, transcripts, and proposed redactions to the Court *ex parte* and under seal to protect victim identities.
DOJ-OGR-00015067.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated July 29, 2025, in which the Government argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to the Epstein and Maxwell cases. Citing the 'magnitude and abhorrence of Epstein's crimes' and a July 6, 2025 Memorandum, the Government asserts that public interest warrants disclosure, subject to redactions protecting victims. The document details that the Epstein grand jury met in June/July 2019, and the Maxwell grand jury met in June/July 2020 and March 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00015064.jpg
This document is a legal filing from July 29, 2025, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines the *In re Craig* factors for disclosing grand jury information and references a July 22, 2025 court order directing the Government to submit specific materials. These materials include indices, full transcripts, and proposed redacted versions of both Epstein and Maxwell grand jury proceedings, as well as confirmation regarding whether victims were notified of the motion to unseal.
DOJ-OGR-00015063.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the Government (Department of Justice) on July 29, 2025 (per header), responding to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for balancing transparency with the obligation to protect victims and cites Second Circuit case law allowing the release of grand jury records under 'special circumstances.' A footnote notes a Circuit split and mentions that Judge Robin L. Rosenberg previously denied a similar request in the Southern District of Florida regarding 2005 and 2007 Epstein records.
DOJ-OGR-00015056.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying defendant Maxwell's request for full access to the grand jury transcripts from her case. The court finds she has not demonstrated a particularized need for the materials, as required by law. However, the court has ordered the government to produce the transcripts for a private (in camera) review by July 28, 2025, after which the court may provide excerpts to Maxwell's counsel if deemed necessary.
DOJ-OGR-00015050.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on July 22, 2025, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order notes that the Court has not received submissions from either defendant Maxwell or the victims regarding a proposed disclosure. A deadline of Tuesday, August 5, 2025, is set for both parties to submit letters outlining their respective positions.
DOJ-OGR-00015049.jpg
This document is a court order directing the Government to file a memorandum of law and specific Maxwell grand jury materials by July 29, 2025. The memorandum must address factors related to its application, including counsel's review of transcripts and victim notification, and be filed in both redacted and unredacted forms. Additionally, the Government is ordered to submit various Maxwell grand jury transcripts and related exhibits under seal to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00015024.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the validity of "offender-generated data" and the findings of several studies, including one by McElvaney and Culhane, about the disclosure patterns of child victims. Key points discussed include the potential for cognitive distortions in self-reports and a study finding that a majority of children first disclosed to their mothers and peers.
DOJ-OGR-00015015.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding an article written in 2006 by Ms. Craven. The questioning focuses on the academic understanding of the term 'sexual grooming of children,' specifically highlighting a quote stating that the phenomenon is not clearly understood in the public domain.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity