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-00008303.jpg
This legal document is a Memorandum Opinion & Order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 9, 2021. The judge overrules the Defense's objections to the admission of Government Exhibit 52 on grounds of authentication and hearsay. The ruling follows testimony from the Government's authenticating witness, Juan Alessi, and establishes the legal standard for the evidence's admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008275.jpg
This legal document is a court filing by the Government arguing for the admission of a contact book (Government Exhibit 52) as evidence. The argument relies on the testimony of Juan Alessi, a former employee of Epstein, who identified the book as being from Epstein's Palm Beach house. Alessi confirmed the book's appearance and recognized names within it, establishing its authenticity and relevance to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00008266.jpg
This legal document, dated December 8, 2021, is an argument addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument contends that the government cannot admit a piece of evidence, referred to as Exhibit 52, because it cannot be properly authenticated as a business record under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The filing asserts that Ms. Maxwell disclaimed all knowledge of a related document (Exhibit 13) during a deposition, and therefore the government fails to meet the legal requirements for its admission.
DOJ-OGR-00008258.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 8, 2021. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the Court regarding stipulations on evidence, noting a disagreement with the defense regarding the authentication of certain birth certificates and a prior sworn statement. She also indicates the government intends to confer with the defense regarding limits on cross-examination of government witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008243.jpg
This page from a legal filing (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against admitting a statement made by attorney Glassman to the Government on August 17, 2021, regarding his client 'Jane'. The Government contends the statement has minimal impeachment value because Jane's civil cases were already dismissed and she had been paid by the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund prior to the statement. Additionally, the Government argues that admitting the statement risks violating attorney-client privilege regarding Glassman's advice to Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00008242.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), dated December 6, 2021. It argues against the defense's claim that a witness named Jane waived her attorney-client privilege regarding advice received from her lawyer, Glassman, about cooperating with the government. The text asserts that Jane did not authorize a waiver, did not testify about privileged communications, and that any statements made by Glassman to the government do not constitute a subject matter waiver for Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00008240.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 6, 2021. It details a judicial rejection of defense arguments that a witness named 'Jane' waived attorney-client privilege by cooperating with the government. The court rules that essential information regarding credibility does not automatically void privilege, citing Rule 403 and previous transcripts.
DOJ-OGR-00008232.jpg
This document is page 8 of a defense filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated December 5, 2021. The defense argues against the admission of government evidence, specifically photos of vibrators, a stuffed tiger, and a stuffed dog, claiming 'Jane' did not identify these specific items in her testimony. The defense also challenges photos of the interior of Epstein's New York apartment, arguing they are unauthenticated and potentially misleading.
DOJ-OGR-00008231.jpg
This legal filing from December 5, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues for the exclusion of specific evidence in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense contends that 2019 photographs of Jeffrey Epstein's house are irrelevant and prejudicial because items like massage tables and artwork are 'highly mobile' and may not reflect the conditions present when the accuser, Jane, was there in 1994-1996. The document asserts that the photos are inflammatory and lack connection to Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008225.jpg
This document is a legal letter dated December 5, 2021, from defense attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense objects to the government's attempt to introduce the '900 series' of photographs of Jeffrey Epstein's New York apartment taken in 2019, arguing they have not been authenticated as accurately representing the apartment during the relevant timeframe of 1994-1996. The letter urges the court to reaffirm its previous ruling from December 3 excluding the photos based on Rules 401 and 403.
DOJ-OGR-00008220.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 4, 2021, is part of a court case where the Government argues for the admissibility of photographic evidence from a search of Epstein's house. The Government intends to use photos of the house's structural features and contents, such as a 'creepy looking' stuffed tiger, to corroborate the testimony of a witness named Jane. Jane testified that the house was 'massive' and 'intimidating,' and the photos are meant to support her claims and counter potential defense arguments about the house's decor.
DOJ-OGR-00008214.jpg
This is a legal filing from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 4, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution is moving to admit photographs from inside Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence as evidence. The government argues that these photographs are relevant to the case because they serve to corroborate the testimony of a witness identified by the pseudonym 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00001921.jpg
This document is page 44 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The defense attorney argues to the judge that the defendant, her associates, and the legal team at Haddon Morgan have received death threats and physical threats. The attorney contends these safety concerns are preventing individuals from coming forward to support a bail package and criticizes the government for dismissing the severity of these threats.
DOJ-OGR-00001917.jpg
This page of a court transcript captures a hearing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It begins with a quote from a 'Jane Doe' expressing fear of Maxwell's potential to flee or cause harm. Subsequently, Ms. Moe introduces victim Annie Farmer, who addresses the court to describe her abuse by Maxwell starting at age 16.
DOJ-OGR-00001913.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, in which the government argues against granting bail to a defendant. The prosecutor highlights the defendant's unexplained wealth, lack of community ties, and willingness to live in hiding as flight risks. The government finds it 'extremely surprising' that the defendant has proposed a bail package with no security, has refused to provide financial details about herself or her spouse, and proposes to live in a transient luxury hotel in Manhattan.
DOJ-OGR-00001910.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The discussion between the Court and prosecutor Ms. Moe concerns the details of the defendant's arrest, specifically confirming that the defendant ignored law enforcement commands to open the door and retreated to a separate room. The Court also notes an allegation that the defendant attempted to block location monitoring by wrapping a cell phone in foil.
DOJ-OGR-00001898.jpg
This document is page 21 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The proceedings involve Judge Nathan setting a trial date for July 12, 2021, and establishing deadlines for pretrial motions. Prosecutor Ms. Moe requests to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act to facilitate discovery review, to which the defense (represented by Mr. Cohen) does not object regarding scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00001888.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. In this excerpt, the Defendant (Maxwell) waives the public reading of the indictment and formally enters a plea of 'Not guilty.' The Court then transitions to a scheduling conference and asks prosecutor Ms. Moe for a status update regarding the discovery process.
DOJ-OGR-00001853.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated November 25, 2020, filed on December 4, 2020. The defense argues against the public identification of Ms. Maxwell's bail sureties (co-signers), citing significant privacy interests and fears of harassment for the sureties and their children. The defense requests an in camera conference and notes that the government consents to sealing the names of cosigners and confidential discovery materials but opposes the conference.
DOJ-OGR-00001831.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the U.S. Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, requesting an extension for producing approximately 1.2 million documents seized from Epstein's residences. The Government asks to move the deadline to November 23, 2020, and to extend the motions schedule. Judge Alison J. Nathan grants the request in an order dated November 9, 2020, setting new deadlines for motions into early 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001825.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on November 9, 2020, dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Maxwell sought to appeal a lower court's denial of her request to modify a protective order and attempted to consolidate this with the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil case. The court outlines legal precedents regarding the 'final judgment rule' and 'collateral order exception' to justify the dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00001820.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated November 6, 2020. The Government argues against the immediate production of witness lists (Giglio/Jencks material), stating it is premature seven months before trial. The document details an upcoming 'sixth discovery production' due November 9, 2020, which includes thousands of images/videos from Jeffrey Epstein's electronic devices, portions of his iPads and iPhone, and FBI Florida files.
DOJ-OGR-00001816.jpg
This document is a Court Order filed on November 5, 2020, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The order formally reminds the prosecution (the Government) of its continuing legal obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence (Brady material) and impeachment evidence (Giglio material) to the defense pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f).
DOJ-OGR-00001808.jpg
This legal document, dated October 23, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the U.S. Government is improperly withholding critical information. The defense claims the government has not provided details about Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement or meetings held in 2016 to investigate Maxwell. The filing accuses the government of contradicting its earlier court assurances by now disclaiming responsibility for investigative files from Florida that were transferred to the New York F.B.I. office.
DOJ-OGR-00001795.jpg
A legal letter dated October 14, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Christian R. Everdell, to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense opposes the government's request to delay the disclosure of evidence (photographs and documents) related to alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues that these materials are exculpatory under Brady v. Maryland because the witnesses allege abuse by Epstein but do not accuse Maxwell of participation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity