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 | 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-00008449.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, argues that the public interest in viewing presentation slides during closing arguments is minimal because the core information is already public. It outlines significant logistical challenges and potential delays associated with making materials like binders and slides accessible to the public in real-time. As a compromise, the parties have agreed to release the demonstrative materials for public review after the arguments are concluded.
DOJ-OGR-00008446.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government on December 19, 2021, outlines the status of various trial exhibits. The Government reports that after conferring with the defense, they have reached an agreement on redactions for certain exhibits (GX 603, GX 604, DX AF-1) and asks the Court to admit specific versions into evidence, some publicly and one under seal to protect third-party privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00008442.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on December 19, 2021, outlines a joint proposal by the prosecution and defense regarding the timing of public access to trial slides. The parties agree to release the slides after the conclusion of the trial day to balance public access with the privacy of victims and the defendant's right to a fair trial. A footnote reveals a disagreement over an alternative proposal by the Government to provide redacted printed slides to the public before summation, which the defense opposes.
DOJ-OGR-00008441.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines a joint proposal from the prosecution and defense regarding the presentation of closing arguments. The parties argue that alternatives like toggling monitors or using printed binders for the jury are unworkable due to potential interruptions, logistical difficulties, and the risk of inadvertently exposing sealed material, which would violate the privacy of victims and third parties. They propose instead to provide redacted copies of their presentation slides to the public on the following day.
DOJ-OGR-00008440.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, argues that the public interest in viewing the parties' presentation slides during closing arguments is minimal, as the content is already largely public. It highlights significant logistical concerns and potential delays that would arise from making the slides public in real-time, such as managing binders and toggling monitors. The parties have instead agreed to make the demonstratives available for public review after the arguments are complete.
DOJ-OGR-00008434.jpg
This document is a legal letter filed on December 18, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests permission for a witness, Mr. Hamilton, to testify remotely from London via WebEx because he has tested positive for COVID-19 and cannot travel. The defense argues that precluding his testimony would violate Maxwell's constitutional rights to present a defense and confront accusers, specifically mentioning the need to expose the bias of an accuser named Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 15, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It presents defense arguments supporting the admissibility of testimony from a witness named Mr. Hamilton regarding statements made by 'Kate,' arguing that this evidence proves bias and is not a collateral matter. The text cites various legal precedents to refute the government's objections.
DOJ-OGR-00008420.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 550) from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The Government argues regarding the admissibility of extrinsic evidence for impeaching a witness, specifically noting that the prior inconsistent statements come from FBI 302 reports written by agents, not the witness herself. The document cites various legal precedents to argue that if a witness admits to an inconsistency found in '3500 material' (Jencks Act material), no further extrinsic evidence is needed.
DOJ-OGR-00008418.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 17, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion involves the admissibility of evidence regarding 'non-testifying alleged victims' and 'prior statements of Ms. Maxwell' (referred to as government 8). The government attorney, Ms. Moe, mentions producing a large volume of electronically-stored discovery to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008417.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It features a legal argument between Ms. Menninger (defense) and the Court regarding hearsay rules. Menninger argues that testimony stating other accusers did *not* mention Ms. Maxwell is not hearsay (as it is an absence of a statement) and should be admissible if the government introduces evidence suggesting other victims exist without calling them to the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00008415.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It details a legal argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger, who asserts that if the government introduces evidence (such as message pads) relating to individuals other than the four primary accusers, the defense should be allowed to introduce statements from those individuals claiming Ms. Maxwell was not involved. Prosecutor Ms. Moe agrees to defer the issue until trial, provided the defense does not mention it in their opening statement.
DOJ-OGR-00008412.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 17, 2021, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge discusses procedural matters regarding background information for the jury and addresses 'No. 6, evidence that goes to consent issues.' Attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Christian Everdell (Defense) are present, and the court suggests deferring the consent argument to the discussion of the Rule 412 motion due to overlapping issues.
DOJ-OGR-00008378.jpg
This document is a legal filing (page 5 of 9) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated December 15, 2021. It argues against the defense's attempt to call attorney Scarola to the stand to testify about his client Carolyn's cooperation with the government and the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (EVCP), citing attorney-client privilege and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (prejudice/confusion). The text asserts that Carolyn was unaware of when the EVCP began accepting claims when she decided to cooperate, negating the defense's theory of financial bias.
DOJ-OGR-00008366.jpg
This legal document, dated December 13, 2021, chronicles the government's efforts throughout 2020 to contact and meet with an individual named Carolyn. The communications were primarily facilitated by an intermediary, Mr. Scarola, who was present at meetings on July 17 and August 11, 2020. The document details the timeline of contact attempts, the involvement of another associate named Mike Danchuck, and a specific statement Mr. Scarola made to the government during one of the meetings.
DOJ-OGR-00008363.jpg
This document is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 14, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order directs the Government to respond to a letter from the Defense regarding witnesses by 10:00 p.m. that day. It also orders the Defense to provide its anticipated witness order to the Court by 12:00 p.m. the same day.
DOJ-OGR-00008358.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 12, 2021, is a request from the Government to the Court in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Government asks the Court to order the defense to provide a chronologically ordered witness list by specific deadlines, arguing that the alphabetical list of thirty-five witnesses already provided is insufficient for trial preparation. The Government contrasts this with its own prior, more detailed disclosures to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008353.jpg
This document is the final page (43) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2021. The transcript records the adjournment of the proceedings, with the Judge instructing Ms. Comey (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) to confer regarding rebuttal witnesses and submit a letter by Saturday if there is disagreement. The court adjourns for the Thanksgiving holiday with plans to reconvene the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00008352.jpg
This court transcript from a pretrial conference on December 10, 2021, documents several procedural discussions. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, successfully requests a limited exclusion from Rule 615 to allow his witnesses (Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus) to review another witness's (Dr. Rocchio's) testimony. The court also establishes a deadline for the government to provide its witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00008346.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a legal discussion between the court and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the definition of 'illegal sexual activity' in an indictment involving Mr. Epstein. The conversation centers on whether events in New Mexico constitute a crime under the Mann Act and how they relate to proving intent for illegal activity in New York, particularly concerning conspiracy charges against 'minor Victim 2'.
DOJ-OGR-00008345.jpg
This court transcript from December 10, 2021, details a discussion between attorney Mr. Rohrbach and the judge regarding the legal framework of the case. They clarify that the charges are based on New York statutes, not New Mexico law, despite alleged sexual conduct occurring in New Mexico. The judge reiterates a prior instruction, explaining that because the witness was over the age of consent in New Mexico at the time, the conduct there was not illegal under local law, a point relevant for jury instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00008343.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 10, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony regarding Accuser 2 and Accuser 3 might lead the jury to convict Maxwell on an improper basis because their allegations do not relate to New York law violations. The Court acknowledges the need to clarify to the jury that while evidence may be relevant to enticement charges, sexual activity in New Mexico cannot be considered as the illegal conduct charged in the indictment itself.
DOJ-OGR-00008341.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on December 10, 2021. The Judge ('The Court') is discussing jury instructions regarding a specific witness involved in sexual conduct in New Mexico. The Judge notes that while the witness was above the age of consent in New Mexico, the government is using the evidence to prove enticement for illegal acts in New York, and the jury instructions must accurately reflect this legal distinction without favoring the government's arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00008336.jpg
This document is page 26 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on December 10, 2021. It records a procedural argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Court regarding the sufficiency of the government's disclosures (Rule 16 and 3500 materials) concerning their expert witness, Mr. Flatley. The Judge warns the government that if their notice is insufficient regarding the expert's opinions, they may face issues later in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008335.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. In the transcript, the judge discusses the disclosure of expert witness opinions with defense counsel, Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach. The judge agrees to a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the defense to provide these opinions and reminds them of their obligation under Rule 16 to provide a clear notice of the opinions, stating that it is not a "scavenger hunt."
DOJ-OGR-00008334.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the scope of expert testimony provided by a Mr. Flatley concerning digital forensics and metadata. The judge instructs the parties on how to handle differing expert opinions on forensic principles.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity