The government
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Witness prosecution |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Witness investigator |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
THOMAS
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Expert witness |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Adversarial professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Adversarial |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
unnamed defendant
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. ROSSMILLER
|
Representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Informant witness |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial prosecution vs defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial prosecution vs defense |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Michael Thomas
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial oversight |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial prosecutor defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Cooperative |
6
|
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-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity