The government
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Rocchio
|
Expert witness prosecution |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Expert witness prosecution |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MDC legal counsel
|
Cooperative professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Robin L. Rosenberg
|
Judicial ruling |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Witness evidence provider |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Lisa Rocchio
|
Retainer expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brian
|
Cooperating witness informant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
McHugh
|
Witness prosecution |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Adversarial opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Victim prosecution |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Employee |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
other Epstein accusers
|
Source of information |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial oversight |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Witnesses
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Opposing parties |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Representative prosecutor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein/Maxwell
|
Prosecutor investigator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Investigator witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mario Biaggi
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00008694.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, designated as Instruction No. 54, from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 18, 2021. It explicitly directs the jury not to draw any inferences or speculate about why individuals other than the defendant are not also on trial. The instruction clarifies that such considerations are irrelevant to the jury's duty of deciding the case based on the evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00008688.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction, specifically "Instruction No. 48," from the trial of Ms. Maxwell, filed on December 18, 2021. It directs the jury on the proper use of "similar act evidence" introduced by the Government, stating it cannot be used to prove bad character or a propensity to commit crimes. The instruction clarifies that this evidence may only be considered for the limited purpose of determining if Ms. Maxwell acted knowingly, intentionally, or as part of a common scheme or plan.
DOJ-OGR-00008680.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 43, from a legal case filed on December 18, 2021. It defines the concept of an "inference" for the jury, explaining it as a logical conclusion based on facts, not guesswork. The instruction clarifies that while both the Government and the defense will ask the jury to draw different inferences, it is solely the jury's decision, and it specifically prohibits the jury from inferring Ms. Maxwell's guilt based merely on her presence at and knowledge of a crime being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008678.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Instruction No. 41) filed on December 18, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The instruction clarifies the 'Time of Offense,' stating that the Government does not need to prove the alleged conduct occurred on exact dates, only that it occurred 'on or about' the dates or within the time periods alleged in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00008673.jpg
This document is page 135 of a court filing (Document 563) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 37, which defines the 'Fourth Element' of Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law, focusing on the requirement to prove an 'overt act' committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00008672.jpg
This document is page 51 (electronic page 134) of jury instructions filed on December 18, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text instructs the jury that to convict Maxwell on Counts One and Three, they must find that an overt act of conspiracy involved a witness other than 'Kate,' meaning Kate's testimony alone is insufficient for these specific counts.
DOJ-OGR-00008670.jpg
This document is a page from jury instructions (Instruction No. 36) filed on December 18, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the 'Third Element' of conspiracy, requiring an 'overt act,' and lists specific alleged acts including group sexual encounters involving Maxwell, Epstein, and a minor named Jane (1994-1997), an unsolicited massage given by Maxwell to Annie in New Mexico (1996), and travel invitations to a minor named Carolyn (2001-2002).
DOJ-OGR-00008664.jpg
This document is page 126 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions explaining legal standards for proving a conspiracy, specifically regarding 'Count One, Three, and Five' of the indictment. The text instructs that circumstantial evidence ('actions speak louder than words') can be used to prove a mutual understanding between conspirators beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the Court should deny the defendant's motion to preclude co-conspirator statements at trial, asserting the defense has misread a prior court order and is seeking an unprecedented remedy. The Government maintains that its handling of co-conspirator statements aligns with the established law of the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00002707.jpg
This document is page 14 of a defense filing (Document 148) in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated February 4, 2021. The defense argues that the government is using a specific diary as 'contemporaneous documentary corroboration' against Maxwell to oppose bail, yet refuses to provide the full diary or the author's name to the defense. The filing requests the Court order the government to either produce the complete diary or identify the author so the defense can issue a subpoena before trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 148) dated February 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial is significantly impaired because the government has not disclosed the identities of the three accusers, forcing the defense to investigate blindly based on assumptions. The filing cites legal precedents (Strawberry, Bortnovsky, Cannone) to argue that the Court has the authority to compel this disclosure to prevent unfair surprise at trial, noting a previous request was denied in August 2020 as premature.
DOJ-OGR-00020365.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, details the denial of a renewed bail request by Maxwell on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan denied the application, concluding that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple citizenships, financial resources, and a history of providing incomplete information to the court. The judge found that no combination of bail conditions could reasonably assure Maxwell's appearance at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020346.jpg
This is page 2 of a court order by Judge Alison J. Nathan dated May 14, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The order denies Maxwell's request to override BOP security check protocols, stating the request is unsubstantiated, but urges the MDC to consider reducing sleep disruption and admonishes them to ensure protocols are neutral and necessary. The document references previous letters from defense counsel regarding detention conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00017600.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the defense (Ms. Menninger), and the Court regarding the need to protect the privacy of a crime victim during upcoming cross-examination. The Court instructs the parties to 'meet and confer' to resolve issues regarding anonymizing names and identifying topics.
DOJ-OGR-00017598.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Comey are discussing legal obligations under Rule 16 regarding the disclosure of impeachment evidence (specifically photographs) prior to cross-examination. The text mentions a witness who testified about the appearance of a home and notes that this witness worked for Jeffrey Epstein until 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00017597.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving a legal dispute over the admissibility of impeachment evidence. Ms. Menninger (Defense) argues that she was not required to produce impeachment photographs to the government prior to trial, while Ms. Comey (Government) requests to brief the issue. The discussion specifically references photographs of the 'Epstein home' taken recently (2021/last year) being used to discuss past events.
DOJ-OGR-00017567.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, regarding the expected testimony of a witness named Jane. Ms. Moe outlines that Jane will testify about being discouraged by her mother from disclosing family issues, especially after her mother reacted negatively to Jane speaking with a guidance counselor following her father's death. The opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger, states she has no objection to this testimony, after which the court takes a short break.
DOJ-OGR-00017565.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a legal debate between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Ms. Menninger). The issue concerns the admissibility of statements made by the witness 'Jane's' mother; the government argues it is for the 'effect on the listener' rather than the truth of the matter, while the defense argues it introduces hearsay and precludes cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017453.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court cross-examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. The witness is questioned about an encounter with a woman named Jane on a plane in Palm Beach. Visoski recalls meeting Jane in the cockpit and seeing her stand between the pilot seats, but cannot swear that she actually flew on the plane and has a generally vague memory of the event, which they contrast with how clearly they could recall someone like President Clinton.
DOJ-OGR-00014534.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense of Ghislaine Maxwell. The summation argues against the prosecution's case by citing testimony from pilots who saw no underage activity, a FedEx custodian who found no packages sent to accusers, and law enforcement specialists whose search of a residence and 40,000 photos yielded no incriminating evidence. The defense's narrative aims to demonstrate a lack of evidence for the grooming and sexual activity allegations presented by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00014531.jpg
This document is a page from the summation transcript of Ms. Menninger (defense) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attacks the credibility of a witness named Carolyn, arguing that she did not mention Maxwell for 17 years, even to her therapist Susan Pope, and only implicated Maxwell after filing lawsuits and receiving $2.8 million from a victims' compensation fund. The defense also disputes Carolyn's claim of seeing a photograph of Maxwell pregnant, stating there is no evidence Maxwell was ever pregnant.
DOJ-OGR-00014530.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, arguing that a witness named Carolyn's testimony is financially motivated. Menninger claims Carolyn, after receiving a settlement from Mr. Epstein and remaining silent for 12 years, only came forward through her lawyer in 2019 after Epstein's death and the opening of a victims' compensation fund, suggesting her cooperation is tied to a potential claim.
DOJ-OGR-00014520.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for a defense team. Menninger argues against a previously established timeline concerning Annie Farmer, using flight logs and border patrol records to assert that Farmer's trips with Jeffrey and Ghislaine to New Mexico, and her subsequent trip to Thailand, occurred in 1997 when she was 17, not in 1996. The core of the argument is to discredit a narrative by highlighting discrepancies in dates and travel details.
DOJ-OGR-00014517.jpg
This document is page 117 of a court transcript (Summation by Ms. Menninger) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The defense attorney argues against the credibility of a witness named Annie, highlighting inconsistencies between her testimony and statements made to the government in 2006 and 2020 regarding a trip to New Mexico and the nature of massages. The defense asserts that Epstein, not Maxwell, communicated with Annie's mother and that Maxwell was unaware of Epstein's hidden agenda.
DOJ-OGR-00014514.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense. The speaker attempts to discredit two individuals: an unnamed woman by questioning her claims of secret flights and a $5 million payment from the government, and Annie Farmer by highlighting a court instruction that her alleged encounter with Epstein and Maxwell was not illegal as charged, and by noting that she was introduced to Epstein by her sister, Maria, who worked for him.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity