Trove
Sign In Sign Up

GOVERNMENT

Organization
Mentions
2805
Relationships
178
Events
870
Documents
1344
Also known as:
Government of Australia Government of the Republic of Cyprus United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Office of Government Relations PRC Government US Government (The Americans) Government Exhibit Office of Government Information Services Government / USA Orban Government Palestinian government IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (IRS-TEGE) Hamas Government Saudi Arabian government Orange County, California (Government) Netanyahu government British Government American government Pakistan Government/Military Canadian Government Australian government Government of Ecuador New Zealand Government Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands Gov't (Government) Government / DOJ American Federation of Government Employees/Council of Prison Locals United States of America (Government) US Government (implied by SDNY context)
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.
178 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person MAXWELL
Legal representative
15 Very Strong
29
View
organization Defense
Legal representative
13 Very Strong
21
View
person defendant
Legal representative
13 Very Strong
62
View
person Defense counsel
Legal representative
12 Very Strong
14
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Legal representative
12 Very Strong
14
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
55
View
person Recipient
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
5
View
organization Defense
Adversarial
11 Very Strong
10
View
person MAXWELL
Adversarial
10 Very Strong
14
View
person the defendant
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
6
View
person THOMAS
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
9
View
person Defense counsel
Professional
10 Very Strong
6
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Adversarial
10 Very Strong
21
View
person the defendant
Adversarial
10 Very Strong
7
View
person defendant
Adversarial
10 Very Strong
24
View
location court
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
5
View
person Ms. Comey
Professional
9 Strong
4
View
person MR. ROHRBACH
Professional
8 Strong
4
View
organization Defense
Professional
8 Strong
3
View
person MR. EPSTEIN
Legal representative
7
2
View
person Thomas
Legal representative
7
3
View
person Dr. Rocchio
Professional
7
2
View
person Minor Victims
Protective
7
2
View
person Epstein's counsel
Professional
7
2
View
person Ms. Moe
Professional
7
3
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A N/A Maxwell's motion to compel discovery from the Government, including Jencks Act, Brady, Giglio mat... Court proceedings View
N/A N/A Court's ruling on Maxwell's discovery requests, concluding she is not entitled to expedited disco... Court proceedings View
N/A N/A Court accepts Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material. Court proceedings View
N/A N/A Accusation by the government that Epstein paid Maxwell millions for recruiting young, underage wo... N/A View
N/A N/A Government's intention to produce 'Materials' to the defendant (Maxwell) under a protective order... N/A View
N/A N/A Argument that defendants should be able to rely on government promises in written agreements and ... N/A View
N/A N/A Maxwell's attempt to dismiss Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or to compel Government to s... N/A View
N/A N/A Broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, covering periods beyond the Indictment. N/A View
N/A N/A Government's review of 'Materials' (documents and photographs) related to Epstein's sexual abuse ... N/A View
N/A N/A Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment due to alleged actual prejudice from Government's delay i... N/A View
N/A N/A Ex parte proceeding where government allegedly misled Chief Judge McMahon to obtain a subpoena. Court View
N/A N/A Client's arrest and detention despite voluntary surrender. N/A View
N/A N/A Discussion of discovery timeline, with the government requesting until November. Court View
N/A N/A Government initiated a massive OPR investigation into the execution of the NPA. N/A View
N/A N/A Court agrees that some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated but acknowledges defamation action re... N/A View
N/A N/A NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) not disclosed to victims N/A View
N/A N/A Search warrants executed at properties of Jeffrey Epstein. New York and Virgin Islands View
N/A N/A Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify victims under the § 2255 provisio... N/A View
N/A N/A Depositions taken as a result of government-supported civil suits against the speaker. N/A View
N/A N/A Indictment of Thomas S.D.N.Y. View
N/A N/A Opening of Grand Jury Investigation Unknown View
N/A N/A Sentencing hearing regarding fines, restitution, and guideline calculations. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Planned resolution of pending redaction issues N/A View
N/A N/A Victims' lawsuit against the government Court View
N/A N/A Ex parte modification of the protective order by Judge McMahon. Court View

DOJ-OGR-00001163.jpg

This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is invalid. It cites two main points: first, the precedent of France refusing to extradite its own citizens, as seen in the case of Peterson, a dual US-French national; and second, the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires that any consent to extradition be evaluated by a judge in real-time with legal counsel present, rendering any prior 'anticipatory waiver' meaningless.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001156.jpg

This legal document, filed on December 18, 2020, is a court motion arguing that victims' accounts against an unnamed defendant are strongly corroborated by both witnesses and documentary evidence. The filing asserts that this evidence will prove the victims interacted with both the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, particularly when some victims were minors. It also addresses a complaint from the defense's 'Renewed Bail Motion' regarding the sufficiency of the evidence produced.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001155.jpg

This legal document discusses the corroboration of victims' accounts against a defendant involved in Epstein's criminal scheme to sexually abuse minors. It addresses the defense's arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence and witness testimony, asserting that multiple victims will provide consistent testimony about the defendant's role in grooming and enticing minor girls. The document also notes that the defendant has abandoned certain legal challenges related to bail after receiving discovery.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001151.jpg

The document is a legal document discussing the detention of a defendant pending trial. It references the Bail Reform Act and relevant case law, arguing that the defendant poses a flight risk and should be detained.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001139.jpg

This legal document outlines two major impediments to Ms. Maxwell's defense preparation. Firstly, it details persistent technical failures with discovery materials provided by the government, including broken and malfunctioning hard drives, which have left her without access to readable evidence for over four months. Secondly, it describes the added burdens of a 14-day COVID-19 quarantine and heightened exposure risk at the MDC due to contact with untested staff, further limiting her ability to review case materials and prepare for trial.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001117.jpg

This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell has addressed the court's concerns about her finances, which were raised at an initial bail hearing. Her defense counsel hired a UK accounting firm, Macalvins, to conduct a thorough five-year financial analysis, and a former IRS Special Agent and Certified Fraud Examiner reviewed and validated this analysis as complete and accurate. The purpose is to demonstrate financial transparency to the court to establish suitable bail conditions.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001112.jpg

This legal document is part of a bail application for Ms. Maxwell, arguing she should be granted bail under strict conditions. The filing asserts that she has deep family ties to the United States, primarily through her spouse, and is supported by numerous friends and family members who have written letters and agreed to act as sureties, posting significant financial bonds. This is intended to counter the Court's previous concern that she lacked significant ties to the country and was a flight risk.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001098.jpg

This document is the table of contents for a legal filing, specifically a memorandum in support of reconsidering a bail decision for Ms. Maxwell. The arguments outlined focus on her strong family ties in the United States, her willingness to provide financial transparency, and refuting the government's claims that she was a flight risk or was hiding prior to her arrest. The filing also asserts that she has waived extradition rights and that the proposed bail package is more than sufficient to ensure her appearance in court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001092.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, regarding the denial of bail for Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rules that she is a significant flight risk due to her foreign connections and ability to evade security. The judge dismisses the defense's comparisons to other high-profile cases (Esposito, Dreier, Madoff) as unpersuasive due to factual differences, and notes the defense's argument regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

Court transcript / legal ruling
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001091.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against granting bail to the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The prosecution contends that she possesses significant financial resources, has demonstrated sophistication in hiding herself and her assets, and has an extraordinary capacity to evade detection, as evidenced by her behavior after Jeffrey Epstein's arrest. The document concludes that even a bail package with electronic monitoring would be insufficient to prevent her from fleeing.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001088.jpg

This legal document details a court's assessment of Ms. Maxwell's flight risk. The court acknowledges Ms. Maxwell's argument that she did not flee the U.S. after Jeffrey Epstein's arrest or during the subsequent investigation, and has remained in contact with the government. However, the court concludes that the seriousness of the crime, potential sentence, her foreign connections, and substantial financial resources provide a strong motive and opportunity to flee, and also notes that her financial disclosures to Pretrial Services were likely incomplete.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001082.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, where an attorney is arguing against their client being a flight risk. The attorney distinguishes their client's case from the U.S. v. Zarger case cited by the government, noting their client was in New Hampshire at the time of arrest and not making plans to leave the country. The attorney also references a prior felony conviction of a Mr. Epstein and a previous proceeding before Judge Berman.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001072.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021. A defense attorney is arguing for the release of their client (inferred to be Ghislaine Maxwell) on the grounds that reviewing voluminous electronic discovery for 'conduct that's alleged to be 25 years old' is impossible while the client is in custody during the pandemic. The attorney notes the client is in 'administrative seg.' (segregation) because authorities are 'afraid of what happened with Mr. Epstein' (referencing his death in custody).

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001068.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed 04/01/2021) appearing to be from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 21-770). Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues during a bail proceeding that the government's indictment relies on 25-year-old conduct specifically to circumvent the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). He cites the 'Annabi case' regarding the scope of plea agreements and claims the prosecution's strategy is tactical.

Court transcript (bail proceeding)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001045.jpg

This page of a court transcript records the conclusion of a victim impact statement by Ms. Farmer urging the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell due to flight risk and the severity of her alleged crimes. Following this, the Court confirms with the government representative, Ms. Moe, that there are no other victims wishing to speak and clarifies that the government is not seeking specific findings regarding danger to the community for pretrial detention purposes.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001041.jpg

This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, detailing the government's argument for detaining a defendant pending trial. The government's representative, Ms. Moe, asserts the defendant is an extreme flight risk, citing her possession of three passports, large sums of money, and international connections. The court clarifies that the government's argument is based solely on flight risk and not on any danger the defendant poses to the community.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001035.jpg

This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, capturing a dialogue between a judge and Ms. Moe regarding a defendant's bail. The judge raises the issue of the defendant's motive for hiding—whether it was to evade authorities or for privacy from the press, especially given the public interest following Mr. Epstein's indictment. Ms. Moe argues that the motive is irrelevant; the crucial fact for the bail determination is that the defendant has demonstrated a clear ability and willingness to live in hiding.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001032.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court case, specifically a discussion regarding the defendant's financial information. The court questions Ms. Moe about the defendant's reported income and the government's perspective on its plausibility.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001025.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding where the judge, defense counsel (Mr. Cohen), and government counsel (Ms. Moe) discuss scheduling. The court sets a trial date for July 12, 2021. The government, through Ms. Moe, requests that the time between the hearing and the trial be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act to allow for discovery and motions.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001022.jpg

This legal document, filed on April 1, 2021, is a transcript detailing the government's process for notifying victims following the arrest of a defendant on July 2 of the previous year. It outlines a timeline of actions taken in July, including notifying victims of the arrest, court hearings, and their right to be heard, utilizing direct contact, a victim services website, and letters. The notifications were sent to victims of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001020.jpg

This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, detailing a discussion between the judge, defense counsel (Mr. Cohen), and government counsel (Ms. Moe) about establishing a schedule for motions and discovery. Mr. Cohen clarifies the schedule by adding a previously omitted August 21 deadline for search warrant applications, which Ms. Moe confirms was included in a prior email to the judge's chambers. The parties are working to finalize deadlines for various legal filings in the case.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001016.jpg

This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, in which a government representative, Ms. Moe, outlines the scope of materials to be provided in discovery. These materials include search warrants, subpoena returns, electronic data, and files from a prior investigation in the Southern District of Florida. Ms. Moe also updates the court on the status of a proposed protective order being negotiated with the defense counsel.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001015.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on April 1, 2021. During the hearing, the defendant, after confirming consultation with their attorney, waives the public reading of the indictment and pleads not guilty. The court accepts the plea and then transitions to a scheduling conference, instructing the government's representative, Ms. Moe, to provide a status update on discovery.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000997.jpg

This legal document argues that a defendant should be denied bail and home confinement. The prosecution contends the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her access to over $20 million in financial resources, her refusal to account for this wealth, and her ability to maintain relationships remotely. The document cites several legal precedents to argue that GPS ankle-bracelet monitoring is not a reliable means of preventing flight.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000989.jpg

This document is a legal filing from the Government arguing against granting bail to the defendant in case 20-cr-00330-AJN. The Government asserts its case is strong, based on detailed testimony from multiple victims about predatory conduct in the 1990s, which is corroborated by evidence such as flight records and diary entries. The Government expresses concern that bailing the defendant would deny justice to the victims and states it will urge the Court to deny bail at a hearing on July 14, 2020.

Legal document
2025-11-20
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