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-00000745.jpg

This is a court order from U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (19 CR. 490). The order, dated July 25, 2025, instructs the Government to deliver all submissions directly to the judge's chambers. Physical submissions must be in a sealed container marked for the attention of Grady MacPhee, and electronic submissions must be sent to his court email address.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000651.jpg

This document is a court transcript from September 3, 2019, detailing a conversation between the court, Ms. Comey, and defense counsel Mr. Weingarten. After confirming a protective order is self-executing, Mr. Weingarten begins to address the court about recent, serious events concerning his client's incarceration, referencing public statements by the Attorney General about "improprieties in the jail" and the subsequent removal of the warden and suspension of guards.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000602.jpg

This document, part of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB), details the timeframes for various legal actions, including direct appeals from verdicts or orders dismissing charges, and petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It specifies that these periods are calculated from the expiration of the appeal period or the granting of a motion by the Government to dismiss charges, whichever date is later.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000601.jpg

This document is page 7 of a Protective Order from a legal case (1:19-cr-00490-RMB), filed on July 25, 2019. It details the rules for handling confidential information by the Defendant and Defense Counsel, including restrictions on possession, inspection under law enforcement protection, and a prohibition on duplication. The order also specifies the procedure for sharing information with 'Designated Persons' and requires the eventual return or destruction of all discovery materials to the Government.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000598.jpg

This document is page 4 of a court order from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on July 25, 2019, related to Jeffrey Epstein. The order prohibits the defense team (including the Defendant, counsel, staff, and experts) from publicly filing any information from the Discovery materials without prior authorization from the Government or the Court. It mandates that any court filings incorporating Discovery information must be filed under seal and also addresses the handling of materials marked as "confidential" by the Government.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000593.jpg

This document is page 8 of a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on July 25, 2019. The text specifies several conditions that trigger a 30-day deadline, including the expiration of periods for direct appeal, the expiration of a petition period under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or the government dismissing charges, with the deadline being set by whichever of these events occurs later.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000591.jpg

This document is a page from a court order filed on July 25, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. It defines 'Highly Confidential Information' as including images of nude or partially-nude individuals and sets forth strict rules for its handling by the defense. The order explicitly states that this information cannot be copied or disseminated and that the Defendant is only permitted to review it under the direct supervision of their defense counsel.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000578.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript where a speaker, likely Mr. Epstein's lawyer, argues that Epstein is not a flight risk. The lawyer contests the government's interpretation of payments Epstein made to witnesses in late 2018, arguing that Epstein's subsequent travel into the country, where he was arrested, demonstrates he did not intend to flee. The lawyer also introduces Mr. Joseph Jaffe, who is present to discuss services his company could provide as part of a potential release condition for Epstein.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000541.jpg

This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in which an attorney, Mr. Weinberg, argues against the detention of his client, Mr. Epstein. Weinberg contends that after he rebuts the presumption of danger, the burden of proof falls on the government, and he asserts that the government has found no allegations of illegal sexual activity by Epstein since 2005, despite a lengthy investigation.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000526.jpg

This court transcript from July 24, 2019, captures a government representative, Mr. Rossmiller, arguing against a defendant's request for home confinement. Rossmiller contends the defendant's vast financial resources make them a flight risk, a claim bolstered by the recent discovery of a safe in the defendant's mansion containing large amounts of cash, diamonds, and a fraudulent foreign passport. The Court questions the specifics of this new evidence, such as whether the cash had been counted.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000521.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, detailing a bail hearing. The prosecution, represented by Mr. Rossmiller, argues that the defendant should be detained, citing the defense's failure to provide detailed financial information and the legal presumption of detention for sex trafficking charges, which is strengthened by the defendant's prior sex offense conviction. The judge interacts with the prosecutor to clarify the government's burden of proof in the matter.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000504.jpg

This document is a court order from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, dated July 18, 2019. It states that the Government's motion for remand (detention) is granted, and the Defense's motion for pretrial release is denied. The order was signed by U.S.D.J. Richard M. Berman.

Court order
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000502.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the prosecution's argument against granting bail to the defendant, Mr. Epstein. It highlights the lack of detailed financial disclosure, Epstein's substantial international income (at least $10 million annually), and his residences in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Paris, all of which contribute to him being a significant flight risk. The document also criticizes a vague proposal for salaried "trustees" to monitor him and notes that his New York property is already subject to a forfeiture allegation.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000501.jpg

This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, critiques Mr. Epstein's proposed bail package, arguing that his home confinement plan involves excessive judicial oversight and raises practical concerns about private security. It also dismisses the defense's offer of an anticipatory extradition waiver as an 'empty gesture,' citing the Department of Justice's view that such waivers are not binding and the risk of the defendant fleeing to a non-extradition jurisdiction.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000496.jpg

This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, details arguments concerning the Defendant, Mr. Epstein's, foreign passports and the associated flight risk. The Defense claims Epstein acquired an Austrian passport in the 1980s from a friend for personal protection during Middle East travel and never used it for international entries. Conversely, the Government argues that the passport, potentially obtained under an alias, contains stamps indicating travel to France, Spain, the UK, and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s, suggesting a capacity for false identities and a serious flight risk. The document also notes Epstein's substantial cash assets of over $56 million as of June 30, 2019.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000495.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the prosecution's argument that the defendant, Mr. Epstein, is an extraordinary flight risk. It cites his vast wealth, including an $8.6M Paris residence, ownership of private jets, extensive international travel (over 20 trips in 18 months), and limited family ties to the U.S. The document also reveals the recent seizure of a fraudulent Austrian passport in his possession, further strengthening the case against granting him bail.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000485.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing from July 18, 2019, argues for the detention of Mr. Epstein. It cites a Pretrial Services report that deems him a flight risk and a danger to the community, referencing his current sex trafficking charges, a 2008 conviction for prostitution-related felonies, and his status as a registered sex offender. The Government alleges Epstein is a "serial sexual predator" who created a vast network to exploit minors, and the document includes a footnote quoting Epstein distinguishing himself as an "offender" rather than a "predator."

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing by the Government in the criminal case against Mr. Epstein, filed on July 18, 2019. It argues that the standard rules of evidence do not apply to bail hearings and that for the specific charges involving sexual victimization of a minor, there is a legal presumption in favor of pretrial detention. The document states that while Mr. Epstein can rebut this presumption, the Government retains the ultimate burden of persuading the court that he is a danger.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000446.jpg

This document is page 2 of a legal filing dated July 16, 2019, addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman. The filing argues against granting release to a defendant named Epstein, asserting that his immense wealth and financial sophistication create an irrebuttable presumption that he is a flight risk. The document quotes previous court transcripts and letters to argue that Epstein could easily transfer assets abroad, become a fugitive, and continue to earn millions, making any conditions of release, including a bond, meaningless.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000432.jpg

This legal document, part of a filing to Judge Richard M. Berman, argues against the government's position that Jeffrey Epstein's wealth creates an 'irrebuttable presumption' that he is a flight risk and should be denied release. The filing contends that this amounts to a 'per se rule' that is contrary to law. It cites government arguments from other court records which detail Epstein's financial sophistication, international ties, and ability to transfer assets and earn millions abroad as reasons why no bail conditions could be effective.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000416.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 16, 2019, detailing a pretrial detention hearing. A government representative, Mr. Rossmiller, argues for the defendant's detention by describing evidence found at his home, including a massage room consistent with victim accounts and electronic disks labeled with incriminating titles. Mr. Rossmiller concludes that the defendant represents a continuing danger to the community and a flight risk, justifying detention pending trial.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000399.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court hearing on July 16, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. The discussion centers on pretrial matters for a Mr. Epstein, including clarification that he has one effective passport and a debate over whether a pretrial report indicates he refused to provide financial information or was simply incomplete. The judge also questions another attorney, Mr. Rossmiller, about allegations of witness tampering by Mr. Epstein, confirming these will be part of the government's bail submission.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000338.jpg

This legal document is a portion of a prosecution filing arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The prosecution asserts that the defendant's wealth should not permit him to create a private, guard-monitored home confinement, citing legal precedent. It further argues the defendant poses an ongoing danger to the community, referencing a prior conviction for a sex crime with a minor and the discovery of a large collection of sexually suggestive photographs of underage females at his residence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000337.jpg

This legal document, page 9 of a court filing, argues against a defendant's proposal to hire private security guards as an alternative to pretrial detention. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit and other district courts to assert that such arrangements create a conflict of interest, magnify flight risks, and foster unequal treatment based on wealth, which is contrary to the principles of the Bail Reform Act. The document highlights past cases where wealthy defendants on private security details violated the terms of their release.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000331.jpg

This legal document, dated July 12, 2019, is a filing by the U.S. Government arguing for the pretrial detention of the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecution refutes the defense's attempt to characterize the alleged crimes as 'simple prostitution,' asserting that under federal law, a minor cannot consent to being exploited, and coercion is not a required element for a child sex trafficking charge. Citing the defendant's history of abuse and past statements minimizing his conduct, the Government concludes that he poses a significant flight risk and danger to the community.

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