GOVERNMENT
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
29 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
62 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
55 | |
|
person
Recipient
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Adversarial |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
THOMAS
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
24 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Thomas
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Minor Victims
|
Protective |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein's counsel
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
7
|
3 |
| 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-00015528.jpg
This document comprises four phone message slips for 'Jeffrey' from January 8th and 9th, 2005. The messages are from Darren, Glen, Regan (Mr. Coperfield's assistant), and Mr. Coperfield, conveying information such as numbers, requests for callbacks, details about a show on the 28th, and Mr. Coperfield's availability. The document also includes a 'GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT' stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00015498.jpg
This document contains four phone message slips from a spiral-bound book addressed to 'Jeffrey' (presumably Epstein). Three of the slips record messages from January 10 and 11, 2005: two from 'Jean-Luc' (likely Brunel) and one from 'Darren', all indicating they had called. The document is marked as Government Exhibit 3-DD for case S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), which relates to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00015491.jpg
This document contains a scanned page of four pre-printed 'IMPORTANT MESSAGE' slips, two of which are filled out by hand. The first slip informs 'Mr Epstein' that 'Misses Kersti + Liz' have arrived. The second slip informs 'Miss Maxwell' that someone (whose name is redacted) is on the phone. The document is marked as Government Exhibit 2-W from the case S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
DOJ-OGR-00015481.jpg
This document contains four telephone message slips from a spiral-bound book, dated September 2, 2003 (09/02/03). The messages are directed to 'JE' (Jeffrey Epstein). Notable calls include one from John Barrow (likely the Cambridge physicist) returning a message, and a significant message from 'Tony' asking if Epstein 'would like anyone today,' suggesting the procurement of individuals. Two other slips contain DOJ redactions obscuring the caller's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00015162.jpg
This document, a legal filing, discusses the strict legal standard for unsealing grand jury testimony, emphasizing that it should only be done in rare, 'exceptional circumstances' to preserve the integrity of grand jury secrecy. It argues against the Government's motion to unseal summary-witness testimony, contending that such an action would undermine the foundations of secrecy and that the redundancy of the testimony with evidence from Maxwell's trial does not justify its release.
DOJ-OGR-00015159.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 11, 2025, is a page from a court filing analyzing whether to unseal grand jury testimony related to an individual named Maxwell. The analysis considers several factors, including the potential harm to Maxwell and her family, the fact that much of the information was already revealed during her trial, and the status of witnesses. The document concludes that some factors are neutral while the factor of prior public disclosure is consistent with unsealing.
DOJ-OGR-00015157.jpg
This legal document, a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, discusses factors weighing against unsealing grand jury records, including testimony from a mayoral candidate and information related to the Epstein-Maxwell investigation. It argues that the Government's broad claims of public interest are not sufficiently linked to the materials at issue, and that a blanket request for disclosure, rather than tailored release, is a factor against unsealing. The document emphasizes the significance of the specificity of information sought for disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00015149.jpg
This legal document describes the process of two separate grand jury proceedings related to indictments against an individual named Maxwell. It details that on June 29, 2020, and March 29, 2021, grand juries heard testimony from an FBI agent and an NYPD detective, respectively, who presented hearsay evidence summarizing the government's investigation. The document outlines the exhibits presented and the subsequent indictments returned by the juries.
DOJ-OGR-00002366.jpg
This legal document argues that the government violated due process by misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose information, which likely impacted a Protective Order. It cites several legal precedents to assert that prosecutors have a duty to seek justice, are presumed to have knowledge of their office's investigations, and must ensure the truthfulness of representations made to a federal judge. The document concludes that the Assistant U.S. Attorney failed in this fundamental duty.
DOJ-OGR-00002366(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues that the government violated due process by materially misrepresenting facts to a court. It cites several legal precedents to assert that a prosecutor's primary duty is to seek justice, not just convictions, and that the prosecutor is presumed to have full knowledge of their case file, with their actions being attributable to the government as a whole. The document concludes that the Assistant U.S. Attorney failed in their basic duty to ensure their representations to a federal judge were true and complete.
DOJ-OGR-00002363(1).jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing requesting the suppression of evidence and dismissal of certain counts. The argument centers on the crucial role of protective orders in civil litigation, citing legal precedents to assert that these orders encourage full disclosure and must be strictly enforced. The filing applies this principle to the "Maxwell depositions," which it characterizes as highly intrusive, to argue against the use of evidence derived from them.
DOJ-OGR-00002359.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is page 12 of a court filing that accuses the government of misrepresentation. The text alleges that the government failed to acknowledge that prosecutors had been approached multiple times before a grand jury subpoena was issued. It references court appearances in March and April 2019 and claims an Assistant U.S. Attorney omitted mentioning these prior contacts.
DOJ-OGR-00002356.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's depositions from April and July 2016. It outlines the terms of a Protective Order for confidential materials and describes a motion by Virginia Giuffre's lawyers (Boies Schiller) to compel Maxwell to answer questions, with assurances that her answers would remain confidential. A footnote alleges that Giuffre's side had previously leaked confidential information to the media and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00002356(1).jpg
This document, a legal filing from February 2021, discusses the handling of confidential material under a Protective Order and details events surrounding Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions. It notes Maxwell's agreement to testify without invoking self-incrimination privilege and Giuffre's subsequent motion to compel further answers. A footnote also highlights concerns about the misuse and leaking of confidential information by the plaintiff and her lawyers to the media, other claimants, and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00002355(3).jpg
This legal document describes the contentious discovery phase of a lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. It notes that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, attempted to turn the suit into a 'proxy prosecution of Epstein' and sought to add a 'law enforcement' exception to a court-mandated Protective Order, which Maxwell rejected. The case ultimately settled before trial, rendering certain provisions of the Protective Order moot.
DOJ-OGR-00002355(2).jpg
This legal document describes the contentious discovery phase of a lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. It highlights that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, attempted to use the lawsuit as a 'proxy prosecution of Epstein' and sought to include a 'law enforcement' exception in the protective order to share information with the government, a proposal Maxwell rejected. The document emphasizes the vast and sensitive nature of the information exchanged, citing a related case to describe the discovery as 'hard-fought' and 'extensive'.
DOJ-OGR-00002354.jpg
This legal document, part of the criminal case against Maxwell, argues that the government's prosecution is based on tainted evidence. The defense claims the government made false representations to circumvent a civil Protective Order from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' defamation case, and therefore the perjury charges stemming from Maxwell's depositions in that case should be suppressed. The document provides factual background on the civil case, where Virginia Giuffre alleged Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were involved in a scheme to sexually abuse and traffic her.
DOJ-OGR-00002353(2).jpg
This document is Page 6 of a legal filing (Motion to Suppress) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). Maxwell's defense argues that Counts Five and Six (perjury charges) should be dismissed because they rely on evidence obtained through an unlawful grand jury subpoena that violated a Protective Order in the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The document asserts the government proceeded 'ex parte' to avoid contestation.
DOJ-OGR-00002353(1).jpg
This document is a legal motion filed on February 4, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team seeking to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena and to dismiss perjury charges (Counts Five and Six). The defense argues that the government unlawfully circumvented a Protective Order from the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* by issuing a subpoena and proceeding *ex parte* to prevent the accuracy of their representations from being contested. The recipient of the subpoena and specific details of the government's arguments are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002340.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel, Bobbi C. Sternheim, filed on February 1, 2021. It details severe technical difficulties Maxwell faces in reviewing terabytes of discovery material at the MDC, including frequent computer crashes, slow processing, and damaged hard drives allegedly mishandled by staff. The filing also alleges that Maxwell is subjected to stricter isolation than other inmates, physical and psychological abuse by guards, and reprisals for reporting mistreatment.
DOJ-OGR-00002338(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on February 1, 2021, is the U.S. Government's response regarding a defendant's access to a laptop for reviewing discovery materials. The U.S. Attorney's office argues that the current arrangement, where the MDC and BOP provide the defendant with 65 hours of laptop access per week plus optional weekend desktop access, is sufficient, noting that the trial is still approximately six months away.
DOJ-OGR-00002315.jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, argues that the indictment against Ms. Maxwell lacks sufficient specificity regarding the alleged crimes and the identities of accusers/victims. It contends that the open-ended time periods and vague descriptions of 'minor girls' or 'victims' in the indictment make it impossible for Ms. Maxwell to prepare an adequate defense or apply the statute of limitations. The document cites legal precedents to support the argument for greater specificity in criminal charges.
DOJ-OGR-00002315(1).jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing that the indictment against Ms. Maxwell is insufficient for her to prepare a defense. The filing claims the indictment uses vague, open-ended time periods for the alleged crimes (e.g., 'from at least in or about 1994') and fails to specifically identify the accusers, referring to them with general terms like 'minor girls' and 'victims'. This vagueness, the document argues, makes it impossible to apply the statute of limitations or know who the government considers a victim.
DOJ-OGR-00002314.jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, is an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to dismiss the Superseding Indictment against her. The defense claims the indictment is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to specify dates for the alleged crimes beyond a broad '1994-1997' range and lacks specific details, thereby preventing Ms. Maxwell from preparing an adequate defense. The filing requests the Court to either dismiss counts one through four of the indictment or compel the Government to provide a Bill of Particulars with more specific information.
DOJ-OGR-00002294.jpg
This legal document argues against including perjury counts in Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial. The author contends that doing so would force the relitigation of a complex and unresolved civil defamation case (dismissed in 2017), making the current trial unnecessarily long and confusing. Furthermore, it raises the issue that including these counts could force Ms. Maxwell's long-term lawyers to testify, potentially leading to their disqualification from the case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity