Trove
Sign In Sign Up

The government

Organization
Mentions
3113
Relationships
270
Events
783
Documents
1522
Also known as:
USA / The Government The Government (USA) US Attorney's Office / The Government
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
270 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Legal representative
24 Very Strong
70
View
person Ms. Moe
Representative
17 Very Strong
21
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Legal representative
15 Very Strong
68
View
person the defendant
Legal representative
15 Very Strong
65
View
person the defendant
Adversarial
13 Very Strong
21
View
person Ms. Moe
Legal representative
12 Very Strong
8
View
person Ms. Comey
Representative
12 Very Strong
10
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Adversarial
12 Very Strong
16
View
organization the defense
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
20
View
person MR. ROHRBACH
Representative
11 Very Strong
11
View
person MAXWELL
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
15
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Adversarial
11 Very Strong
21
View
person Defense counsel
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
7
View
person MS. POMERANTZ
Representative
10 Very Strong
6
View
person Jeffrey Epstein
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
6
View
person defendant
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
18
View
organization The Court
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
7
View
person victims
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
8
View
person Jane
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
3
View
person ALISON J. NATHAN
Professional
10 Very Strong
6
View
person MS. MENNINGER
Opposing counsel
9 Strong
5
View
person MAXWELL
Adversarial
9 Strong
5
View
person JANE
Witness prosecution
9 Strong
5
View
person Juror 50
Legal representative
9 Strong
5
View
person A. Farmer
Witness prosecution
8 Strong
4
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A Trial The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, where she was convicted of Mann Act offenses. N/A View
N/A Jury deliberation The document provides instructions for the jury on how to deliberate on the six separate counts a... Courtroom (implied) View
N/A Meeting Brian met with the government long before the trial began. N/A View
N/A Hearing An initial bail hearing was held where the Government expressed doubt about the defendant's repor... N/A View
N/A Court order Parties are ordered to confer and prepare a stipulation that Government Exhibits 52A, 52D, 52E, 5... N/A View
N/A Legal case Ongoing criminal case, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, against Ms. Maxwell. Court View
N/A Trial The future trial for which the defense is preparing and requesting information. Court View
N/A Trial Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, which resulted in convictions that are now being challenged in this mo... N/A View
N/A Trial The upcoming trial for which the government is seeking pre-trial notice of evidence from the defe... N/A View
N/A Trial A criminal trial where the Court gave instructions to the jury regarding charges against the Defe... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Argument being made in favor of granting bond to Ms. Maxwell. United States View
N/A Court hearing A Detention Hearing where the Government informed the Court about the seized diamonds and cash. Court View
N/A Interview Witness A. Farmer met with the government approximately five or six times since the initial 2019 ... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The government's case against Ms. Maxwell, which is alleged to be based entirely on the testimony... N/A View
N/A Investigation The government is investigating the circumstances surrounding the purchase of a property in New H... New Hampshire View
N/A Legal action The government issued a grand jury subpoena to obtain evidence. N/A View
N/A Legal preparation The defendant reviews discovery materials provided by the Government and her defense counsel usin... MDC View
N/A Trial The legal proceeding for which this pre-trial motion's table of contents is prepared. The Court View
N/A Investigation The document outlines motions to preclude evidence or argument about current or prior investigati... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding / trial Discussion of procedures for providing trial exhibits (slides) to the public following closing ar... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Ms. Maxwell's motion regarding Juror No. 50's conduct, leading to a discussion about an evidentia... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The document outlines the rules for handling Confidential Information during the course of procee... N/A View
N/A Legal conference A conference held on November 23rd where the limiting instruction was previously discussed. N/A View
N/A Bail hearing A bail hearing where the government touted flight records as evidence. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Pre-trial motion regarding the admissibility of evidence for Ms. Maxwell's defense. Court View

DOJ-OGR-00011627.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the Court regarding an issue where the defense has subpoenaed the attorney representing 'Minor Victim 4' to testify at trial. The government argues they cannot understand what admissible testimony this attorney could offer that isn't covered by attorney-client privilege and indicates they will move to preclude it.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011619.jpg

This document is page 100 of a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge advises the defendant of their right to appeal the conviction and sentence within 14 days. The Court also discusses administrative matters, specifically setting the 'end of the conspiracy date' to July 2004 for the purpose of the judgment, to which neither the prosecution (Ms. Moe) nor the defense (Ms. Sternheim) objects at that moment.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011616.jpg

This legal document is a transcript from a sentencing hearing on July 22, 2022, where a judge sentences Ms. Maxwell. The judge imposes five years of supervised release, a $750,000 fine, and a mandatory special assessment, justifying the fine by noting Ms. Maxwell's ability to pay due to a $10 million bequest she received from Epstein.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011600.jpg

This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a defense attorney's argument during a sentencing hearing. The attorney, Ms. Sternheim, asks the Court for a sentence below the recommended guidelines, arguing the government's request is disproportionate and that the more culpable Jeffrey Epstein would have faced the same sentencing guidelines as her client, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011575.jpg

This document is page 56 of a court transcript from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 22, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe is addressing the court, requesting an above-guideline sentence of multiple decades in prison for Maxwell's role in a child exploitation scheme. The prosecutor specifically names victims Jane, Kate, Annie, Virginia, Carolyn, and Melissa, detailing that Maxwell first met Jane at a summer camp in 1994 when Jane was 14.

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011547.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell sentencing) dated July 22, 2022. The defense argues that money transfers for a helicopter and Larry Visoski holding car assets for Epstein do not prove the defendant's continued involvement in the conspiracy. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the financial evidence was offered to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg

This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against a sentencing enhancement, disputing the reliability of a 'message pad' and arguing that the conspiracy effectively ended in 2004, meaning 2003 guidelines should apply. The defense also contests a government claim that the defendant received $7 million into the 2007 time period.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, where an attorney argues a legal point to a judge. The attorney contends that determining the end date of an offense, which is critical for an Ex Post Facto Clause violation claim, is a factual question for the jury, not a Sixth Amendment issue for the judge as per the Apprendi line of cases. The attorney cites the 'Tykarsky' opinion as support and notes that the government has not responded to this specific argument.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg

This document is page 19 of a court transcript from a sentencing hearing filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the 2003 sentencing guidelines should apply rather than the 2004 guidelines to avoid violating the Ex Post Facto Clause, noting that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 240 months despite a calculated range of 292-365 months.

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011535.jpg

This document is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. The judge is ruling on defense objections to the Presentence Investigation Report. The court overrules objections regarding findings that records from the 2005 Palm Beach search prove Epstein received sexualized massages from minors (2001-2004) and affirms the defendant's responsibility for victimizing additional minors. It also addresses the inclusion of a victim impact statement from a survivor named 'Kate'.

Court transcript (sentencing/hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011523.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated July 22, 2022, involving Ms. Sternheim (defense) and Ms. Moe (government). The proceedings cover administrative confirmations of filings on ECF and a substantive discussion regarding the government's compliance with the 'Justice For All Act.' Specifically, Ms. Moe confirms that the government has notified six victims, proven at trial to be impacted, about the upcoming sentencing and their right to be heard.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00005752.jpg

This is page 6 of 10 from a defense motion filed on October 29, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The document argues that specific witnesses (whose names are redacted) should be precluded from offering 'overview' testimony or expert opinions because the government failed to provide the required pretrial disclosures under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(1)(G). The text cites *United States v. Brooks* to argue that overview testimony by government agents can improperly influence the jury by introducing credibility assessments or hearsay not in evidence.

Legal motion / court filing (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017655.jpg

This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Rule 11(c)(2) regarding plea agreements. It argues that prosecutors should be required to inform the court if a victim objects to a plea deal, citing Senator Feinstein and the case State v. Casey. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen (who represented Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was produced as part of a congressional investigation, likely regarding the handling of victims' rights in the Epstein non-prosecution agreement.

Legal document / law review article / congressional production
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017349.jpg

This document appears to be a page from a manuscript draft (indicated by word count and date headers) written by an attorney, likely Alan Dershowitz, given the specific anecdotes and clients mentioned. The text analyzes the 'irrational' risky behavior of celebrity clients, specifically citing Leona Helmsley's tax evasion and Mike Tyson's rape conviction as examples where the risks outweighed the benefits. The author concludes with a psychological analysis of celebrity entitlement and a personal anecdote about reusing tea bags.

Manuscript draft / book excerpt
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_027894.jpg

This document appears to be a page from a memoir or autobiography (likely belonging to Ehud Barak, given the specific mention of Mishmar Hasharon) included in the House Oversight files. The text details the narrator's youth in Israel, including academic struggles, work on a Kibbutz, and observations regarding social inequality and the treatment of Moroccan and Yemenite Jewish immigrants in development towns like Ofakim. It is a narrative text rather than a transactional record or flight log.

Memoir / manuscript page
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015630.jpg

This document is page 10 of a legal response in the defamation case *Edwards v. Dershowitz* (CACE 15-000072). The filing argues against Dershowitz's motion for confidentiality, citing previous orders by Judge Marra in a federal CVRA case. The text explicitly mentions allegations of sexual abuse by Dershowitz against Ms. Giuffre and asserts that previous court orders allow for these factual details to be presented if properly supported.

Court filing (legal brief/response)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015628.jpg

This document is page 8 of a legal response in the case of Edwards v. Dershowitz (Case No. CACE 15-000072). It details a motion filed on December 30, 2014, by Virginia Giuffre (Jane Doe No. 3) and Jane Doe No. 4 to join the case as victims under the CVRA, explicitly alleging that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked Giuffre to Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew for sexual purposes while she was a minor. The text also notes Dershowitz's subsequent aggressive media response, in which he called Giuffre a 'serial liar' and the opposing attorneys 'sleazy' and 'unprofessional.'

Legal pleading / court filing (response to motion)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015627.jpg

This document is page 7 of a response in the case Edwards v. Dershowitz (CACE 15-000072). It details discovery disputes between victims' counsel (Edwards and Cassell) and the Government regarding the production of documents and the attempt to add Virginia Giuffre (Jane Doe No. 3) to the case in 2014. The text highlights the Government's delay tactics and eventual refusal to stipulate the addition of new victims.

Legal filing (court motion response)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015188.jpg

This document appears to be a page from a satirical essay or manuscript (possibly a book draft or monologue script) included within a House Oversight Committee production (stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015188). The text uses a metaphor comparing Democrats to a 'Pacer' who walks in circles, noting that the Pacer eventually monetized this behavior by placing a cardboard box on the ground. The narrator describes performing an impression of this character onstage.

Manuscript excerpt / satirical essay (contained within house oversight committee records)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025542.jpg

This document is a first-person statement, likely by Jeffrey Epstein, criticizing the handling of his plea deal and subsequent civil suits. He alleges that the government violated the spirit of his agreement, that an opposing attorney engaged in nepotism and excessive billing ($800,000), and that the accusers were unreliable witnesses who worked in the sex trade. He defends himself by claiming he was merely a 'consumer of prostitution' rather than a trafficker and explains he took the plea deal to avoid a mandatory 10-year sentence and a biased trial.

Personal statement / legal memorandum (first-person narrative by jeffrey epstein)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014063.jpg

This document is page 84 of a law review article (Vol. 104) by Cassell et al., criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The authors argue that the OLC's interpretation effectively nullifies victims' rights in non-prosecution agreements, explicitly citing the 'Epstein case' as a notable example where this occurred. The footnotes highlight that the OLC opinion was released on May 20, 2011, shortly before the Government filed its response in the Epstein case.

Legal academic article / law review
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032376.jpg

An email thread from November 2016 between interior designer Linda Pinto and Jeffrey Epstein regarding a project on Ile Moustique (Mustique). Pinto presses for approval to proceed as her staff is waiting, and Epstein approves the request for an invoice while mentioning he is dealing with government meetings regarding foreign workers. Epstein also casually notes that it has been 'crazy with trump people' in Palm Beach.

Email thread
2025-11-19
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search