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 | Legal motion | Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a motion for a new trial. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record, but consente... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's trial, which is the subject of a motion for a new trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A proposed evidentiary hearing regarding Juror No. 50, which is being debated by the government a... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial testimony | A witness gave testimony about her encounters with Maxwell and Epstein, which is now being discus... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | The defendant's criminal trial, during which the Government observed her to be perfectly healthy ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | The upcoming sentencing hearing where the Government is making recommendations for incarceration ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A covert investigation into the defendant was conducted by the government for months. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A court hearing regarding the defendant's potential release on bail. | the Southern District | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Jane chose to cooperate with the government and testify against Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the rules of evidence and procedures for an upcoming trial involving Ms. M... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Approximately 10 preparation meetings between the witness and the government. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Carolyn's lawyer contacted the government and her story was changed to include Ghislaine. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Government objected to Maxwell's proposed questions; The Court ruled to ask a single question... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal hearing | An initial hearing where the government made arguments about Ms. Maxwell's arrest. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The government produced voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) to Ms. Maxwell and her coun... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Government sought to unseal grand jury transcripts from 2005 and 2007 relating to Epstein in ... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Legal hearing | An initial bail hearing was held where the defendant's assets were discussed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A proposed post-verdict hearing to determine if Juror 50 deliberately lied on a juror questionnaire. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Death in custody | The inexplicable death of Jeffrey Epstein while in government custody. | government custody | View |
| N/A | Investigation | The Government conducted a review of AUSA-1's archived emails to find communications with attorne... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | The Government and the defense conferred and reached an agreement about redactions for exhibits G... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Mr. Robertson asks the Court to reconsider its earlier decision denying him pretrial release, cit... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal preparation | The defendant is reviewing discovery materials provided by the Government using hard drives, an M... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Filing of a motion | A motion was filed by a party (implied to be the government) a month and a half after a 'plaza co... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00015005.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The testimony focuses on 'Exhibit 3,' a scientific study accepted in May 2020, specifically discussing the lack of a universally accepted model for defining behaviors that constitute 'sexual grooming' in child sexual abuse cases. The witness clarifies that this study is just one example of the literature informing their opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00014999.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a cross-examination by Mr. Pagliuca in the case Rocchio - Cross. The discussion centers on an article titled 'Observing Coercive Control Beyond Intimate Partner Violence' and its study, specifically questioning the witness about the 22 unidentified professional participants. The Court intervenes briefly for clarification during the testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00014984.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on January 15, 2025. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, a psychologist, regarding the definition of forensic psychology versus therapeutic roles and the potential for 'dual roles' or boundary violations. The witness confirms they are testifying in a forensic capacity subject to APA guidelines and acknowledges reviewing a letter sent by the government on April 23rd that outlined their opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00014978.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated January 15, 2025, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on a phone call in April 2021 where Rocchio allegedly defined terms such as 'child,' 'sexual abuse,' and 'nonconsensual' to a group of Assistant US Attorneys (Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, Rohrbach). Rocchio states they do not specifically recall the definitions given or the context of the notes taken by the AUSAs.
DOJ-OGR-00014977.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Dr. Rocchio's definition of a 'child' (age of consent vs. under 18) and references a prior interview with the government on April 9, 2021, documented in '3500 material' (Jencks Act disclosures).
DOJ-OGR-00014972.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, filed on January 15, 2025. The questioning focuses on the witness's note-taking practices during prior interviews with the government. Rocchio admits to taking temporary notes on topics like "grooming" to research later and then discarding them, but confirms maintaining a file related to their retention in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00014879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. The Judge discusses the necessity of sealing portions of the proceedings related to Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (sexual behavior evidence) and outlines the schedule for addressing 'Daubert' issues first. The Judge also notes a high response rate for jury summons, with 565 prospective jurors having filled out questionnaires in two days.
DOJ-OGR-00014858.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (filed Dec 2, 2024) summarizing the procedural history of Ghislaine Maxwell's post-trial motions. It details the controversy surrounding 'Juror 50,' who testified on March 8, 2022, that inaccuracies in his jury questionnaire regarding past sexual abuse were inadvertent mistakes. The court found the juror credible and denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial, subsequently sentencing her to 240 months in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00014857.jpg
This page from a legal document details the conclusion of a trial against a defendant named Maxwell, who was found guilty of multiple charges on December 29, 2021. The document's primary focus is on a post-verdict issue involving 'Juror 50', who revealed in press interviews that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse, directly contradicting his 'no' answers to related questions on his pre-trial jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00014847.jpg
This court transcript from August 22, 2022, details a discussion about finalizing a judgment in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court informs counsel of its decision to set the end date of the criminal conspiracy as July 2004, noting this differs from the government's previous position. The government's counsel, Ms. Moe, states she will review the exhibits and will only file a written objection if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00014844.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing filed on August 22, 2022. A judge sentences Ms. Maxwell to five years of supervised release and orders her to pay a $750,000 fine. The judge rejects the defendant's claim of inability to pay, citing her receipt of a $10 million bequest from Epstein as evidence of her financial capacity.
DOJ-OGR-00014828.jpg
This document is page 81 of a court transcript from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's requested sentence is disproportionate and notes that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 20 years. Sternheim explicitly argues that Jeffrey Epstein was 'far more culpable' than Maxwell, yet would have faced the same sentencing guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00014798.jpg
This document is page 51 of a court transcript from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The text details a recruitment chain involving the defendant, Virginia [Giuffre], Carolyn, and Melissa, noting that Melissa's name appears in the defendant's 'little black book.' The court also discusses financial fines, specifically mentioning the defendant's objection to including a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein as part of her assets.
DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 22, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the commentary on a sentencing guideline for 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal, choosing to rest on her previously filed written arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00014780.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, in the case of USA v. Maxwell. The defense argues against a 'leadership enhancement' for sentencing, claiming trial testimony proves Sarah Kellen was Jeffrey Epstein's assistant, not Ghislaine Maxwell's, citing witnesses Larry Visoski and Cimberly Espinosa. Prosecutor Ms. Moe rebuts by citing victim Carolyn's testimony that Maxwell was present at the Palm Beach residence even when Kellen took over scheduling massages.
DOJ-OGR-00014779.jpg
This document is page 32 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (filed Aug 22, 2022). The defense counsel argues against a sentencing enhancement for a leadership role by claiming Maxwell did not supervise Sarah Kellen. Instead, citing testimony from witnesses Carolyn and Juan Alessi, the defense asserts that Sarah Kellen replaced Maxwell in the specific task of scheduling massage appointments, with a clear break between their tenures in that role.
DOJ-OGR-00014778.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell held a leadership role ('lady of the house') over Sarah Kellen, citing flight records to prove they were close associates of Jeffrey Epstein simultaneously. The defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) disputes the government's legal interpretation regarding the supervision of criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00014776.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court transcript from the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The discussion focuses on sentencing guidelines, specifically whether Maxwell acted as an 'organizer or leader' of criminal activity. The government attorney (Ms. Moe) argues that Maxwell held a supervisory role over Sarah Kellen, identifying Kellen as a 'criminally responsible participant' to justify the sentencing enhancement.
DOJ-OGR-00014769.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It captures a legal argument between the judge ('THE COURT') and a government attorney ('MS. MOE') about the end date of a criminal conspiracy. The judge challenges the government's use of evidence from late 2004 and 2005, arguing it constitutes inadmissible 'post conspiracy' evidence because the conspiracy was legally dependent on a person named Carolyn being under the age of 18.
DOJ-OGR-00014768.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 22, 2022. It details a discussion between a judge, government attorney Ms. Moe, and another attorney, Mr. Everdell, about whether a criminal offense continued into November and December of 2004. The determination is critical for deciding if the 2004 sentencing manual applies, with the government arguing it does based on the trial testimony of a crime victim.
DOJ-OGR-00014767.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court transcript (Document 779) filed on August 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text records a defense attorney arguing that determining when offense conduct ended is a matter for the jury, specifically to avoid Ex Post Facto violations regarding sentencing guidelines. The speaker cites the 'Tykarsky' opinion and distinguishes the current situation from 'Apprendi' case law.
DOJ-OGR-00014766.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and a defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, during a sentencing hearing. The judge summarizes the probation department's sentencing recommendation and invites Mr. Everdell to present his arguments. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should determine which version of the sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) applies, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause.
DOJ-OGR-00008649.jpg
This document is a jury instruction for Count Four in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell, concerning the transportation of a minor, "Jane," across state lines for illegal sexual activity. It clarifies the second element the government must prove: that Ms. Maxwell knowingly transported Jane with the intent for her to engage in sexual activity that violates New York Penal Law. The instruction specifies that this illegal purpose did not need to be the sole reason for the travel, but it must have been a "significant or motivating purpose" and not merely incidental to the trip.
DOJ-OGR-00008638.jpg
This document is page 100 of a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, containing Jury Instruction No. 11 for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The instruction advises the jury that the indictment contains six separate counts which must be considered independently of one another. It further reiterates the burden of proof, stating the Government must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a guilty verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00008629.jpg
This document is page 91 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. 4, which advises the jury that statements made by counsel (arguments, objections) and the court (rulings, sidebars) are not evidence, and that the jury's own recollection of the evidence controls the verdict.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity