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-00019364.jpg

This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion from a defendant named Maxwell to consolidate her criminal and civil appeals. The Government asserts that Maxwell's motion is a strategic attempt to circumvent an order by Judge Nathan that restricts the use of criminal discovery materials in her civil litigation. The filing warns that consolidating the cases would effectively reverse the judge's order without a proper appeal and raises concerns about disseminating sensitive, sealed criminal documents to civil litigants.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019350.jpg

This document is a legal filing arguing that an appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It cites the 'final judgment rule' from Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which generally prohibits appeals until a final decision is made on the merits of a case. The filing emphasizes that this policy against 'piecemeal' appeals is particularly strong in criminal law, referencing several Supreme Court precedents.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019349.jpg

This legal document from September 16, 2020, outlines recent court proceedings involving a litigant named Maxwell and Judge Nathan. On September 2, 2020, Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motion, criticizing it as vague and lacking a "coherent explanation" for why criminal discovery materials were needed for her civil cases. Despite the denial, Maxwell was permitted to share some information under seal, and she subsequently filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2020.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019346.jpg

This legal document, dated September 16, 2020, outlines key procedural events in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It details a protective order issued on July 30, 2020, which restricts the use of discovery materials, and a subsequent motion filed by Maxwell on August 17, 2020, to modify that order. The document also notes that Maxwell's pretrial motions are due December 21, 2020, and the trial is scheduled to begin on July 12, 2021.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019338.jpg

This legal document, dated August 21, 2020, is a submission from the Acting United States Attorney and Assistant United States Attorneys to Honorable Alison J. Nathan. It argues against the defendant's application to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, asserting that the application lacks legal justification, attempts to circumvent a protective order, and is irrelevant to the civil litigation. The document suggests the defendant's intent is to falsely accuse the Government and another party.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019337.jpg

This document, dated August 21, 2020, is a legal filing addressed to Honorable Alison J. Nathan, arguing against the defendant's attempts to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases. It references several legal precedents and asserts that the Government's methods of obtaining materials through grand jury subpoenas are standard practice, not nefarious, and that the materials at issue are properly sealed due to an ongoing grand jury investigation.

Legal document/court filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019335.jpg

This document is page 2 of a legal filing by the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 21, 2020, in the criminal case against a defendant (implied Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government opposes the defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials—specifically regarding grand jury subpoenas issued to an unnamed 'Recipient' during the Epstein investigation—in separate civil litigation. The Government argues this violates the protective order which restricts discovery material solely for the defense of the criminal action.

Legal correspondence / court filing (government letter to judge)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019331.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines a procedural history concerning sealed information from civil matters. The Government successfully modified a protective order in one court (Court-1) but not another (Court-2) to obtain materials for a grand jury investigation, which were then turned over by a 'Recipient'. The current court is now permitting the Defendant, who learned of this through discovery, to provide the sealed information back to Court-1 and Court-2 for their own determination of relevance.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019329.jpg

This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request to modify a protective order. The court notes that on July 30, 2020, it entered a protective order, which both the defendant and the government had agreed to, stipulating that discovery materials could only be used for the defense of the current criminal case. The defendant's subsequent request to use these materials for other purposes is denied, with the court referencing the prior agreement and legal standards.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019312.jpg

This document is page 10 of a legal court order, filed on July 30, 2020, that outlines strict procedures for handling confidential discovery materials in a criminal case. It details how the Defendant and their counsel can inspect evidence under supervision and explicitly prohibits the entire defense team from publicly filing any confidential information without written authorization from the Government or an Order of the Court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019259.jpg

This document is a court order denying the Defendant's request to modify a protective order in a criminal case. The original order, entered on July 30, 2020, restricted the use of discovery materials provided by the Government solely for the defense of the current criminal action. The court's decision upholds this restriction, preventing the Defendant from using the documents for any other purpose.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019255.jpg

This document is a page from a court docket in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, listing entries from late July 2020. It includes an affidavit filing, correspondence regarding a protective order, the order itself, and a lengthy Memorandum Opinion & Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan resolving disputes over the protective order's terms regarding public references to victims/witnesses and the use of discovery materials. The court ruled in favor of the Government's proposed language, prioritizing the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses.

Court docket sheet / memorandum opinion & order
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019252.jpg

This document is a page from the court docket for Case 20-3061 involving Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from July 8 to July 9, 2020. It records procedural orders regarding remote proceedings, Speedy Trial Act exclusions, and victim notification rights, as well as the filing of attorney appearances, a pro hac vice motion, and a superseding indictment. The document also details the scheduling of an arraignment and bail hearing via teleconference.

Court docket sheet page
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019163.jpg

This document is a court transcript from the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning concerns an invoice detailing package shipments in December 2002. One shipment on December 12, 2002, was sent by "J. Epstein" to a recipient pseudonymously called "Jane," and the questioner clarifies that this sender is not Ghislaine Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019154.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding Government's Exhibit 803-R. The testimony confirms a FedEx invoice dated October 14, 2002, associated with Jeffrey Epstein's account at 457 Madison Avenue, NY, and discusses a specific shipment picked up on October 7, 2002.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019147.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. During the testimony, Government Exhibits are discussed and admitted into evidence, with Ms. Chapell identifying Exhibit 802 as an "Invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account." The government then offers this exhibit under seal.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019141.jpg

This is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, where the judge and attorneys discuss scheduling for the remainder of a trial. The main topic is whether to hold a charge conference on Thursday night, which depends on if the defense will rest its case before Friday. A defense attorney also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena served to an individual named Mr. Glassman.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019137.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge, a government attorney (Ms. Moe), and another attorney (Mr. Pagliuca). The attorneys and the judge debate the proper way to present documentary evidence to the jury, specifically whether it can be done without a witness on the stand. Mr. Pagliuca objects to the government's proposed method, and the judge expresses concern that it would be improper.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019134.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a lawyer, Ms. Moe, and the judge (The Court). Ms. Moe argues for using an agent to present exhibits to the jury to protect sensitive information, describing it as a 'streamlined testimony'. The Court expresses concern, noting that this role differs from a typical summary agent witness who testifies about their own investigation.

Legal document (court transcript)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019118.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a delay in starting the defense's case because the government shortened their case unexpectedly, causing witness scheduling issues. The Court agrees to delay the defense case start until the following Thursday and discusses scheduling a charging conference for Friday or the evening of the 16th.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019091.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses first on a photograph of Eva Dubin and whether she appeared pregnant, then shifts to examining Government Exhibit 662 (flight logs). Specifically, the questioning confirms a flight (number 878) that took place on August 18, 1996, traveling from Teterboro to Palm Beach.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019087.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely a pilot). The testimony confirms flight patterns between Teterboro/JFK and Palm Beach, specifically noting that Ghislaine Maxwell was not always present. It specifically identifies a flight on May 4, 2002, from JFK to Palm Beach where the passengers were Jeffrey Epstein and Shelly Lewis.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019058.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning establishes that an unnamed male subject regularly traveled to Interlochen, Michigan, in August to watch performances and that Rodgers flew him there seven times between 1991 and 1997. The testimony confirms the destination, purpose of the trips, and the witness's prior statements to the government on the matter.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017177.jpg

This document is a summation in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It mentions Jeffrey Epstein and includes a statement from the court thanking Ms. Menninger.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017173.jpg

This document is a transcript of a court summation delivered by Ms. Menninger on behalf of her client, Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Menninger explains to the jury the concept of 'reasonable doubt,' stressing that the government bears the entire burden of proving every element of the charges. She instructs them that they must acquit Ms. Maxwell if the government fails to meet this high standard of proof for any part of the case.

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