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 Legal dispute The defense is arguing that the government must produce unredacted reports containing Brady mater... Court View
N/A Legal agreement The signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to the Epstein case. N/A View
N/A Legal hearing A detention hearing held by the district court where the government argued Ms. Maxwell was a flig... district court View
N/A Trial testimony Anticipated testimony of Witness-3 regarding interactions with the Defendant and Mr. Epstein. Courtroom View
N/A Court ruling A judge makes several rulings on objections from the government and defense regarding the admissi... Courtroom View
N/A Trial The document discusses the government's burden of proof at Ms. Maxwell's upcoming trial. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The criminal trial of Ms. Maxwell, where she is the defendant. N/A View
N/A Legal action The government's decision to intervene in the case Doe v. Indyke. S.D.N.Y. View
N/A Legal action The government's decision to remain on the sidelines of the case Giuffre v. Maxwell. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding A criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell where the government insists on the secrecy of discovery ma... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Ms. Maxwell's prosecution, which she argues was barred by a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). District Court View
N/A Legal challenge Schulte's fair cross-section challenge to the jury-selection process, alleging systematic exclusi... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The Government sought an Indictment in White Plains. White Plains View
N/A Hearing A court hearing where Juror 50 testified about his inaccurate answers on a questionnaire. Court View
N/A Legal proceeding Oral argument during which the government was asked about the routine nature of shining lights in... Court View
N/A Investigation The Government continued its investigation, which included interviewing two victims. N/A View
N/A N/A Post-verdict hearing regarding Juror 50 District Court View
N/A Investigation The Government opened a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-conspir... N/A View
N/A Legal action Grand jury subpoenas were issued to an entity referred to as 'Recipient'. N/A View
N/A Legal hearing The original bail hearing where the Government argued the defendant has considerable financial re... Court View
N/A Trial A legal trial where evidence was presented, a summation was given by the Government, and jury ins... District Court View
N/A Legal proceeding A Grand Jury Proceeding, the disclosure of materials from which is being debated based on several... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The Government began to produce discovery shortly after the protective order was entered. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The Government began to produce discovery materials to the Defendant shortly after the protective... N/A View
N/A Court proceeding The initial stage of the case, opening statements, is scheduled to begin after lunch. courtroom View

DOJ-OGR-00017163.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript featuring the summation by Ms. Menninger, likely in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text focuses on discrediting the testimony of Juan Alessi regarding the household hierarchy involving Epstein and Ghislaine, as well as questioning the validity of evidence concerning a household manual and a black address book.

Court transcript / summation
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017160.jpg

This document is a page from the closing arguments (summation) by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Menninger argues against the government's claim that financial transfers to Maxwell were payments for facilitating abuse, stating that transfers like the $7.4 million for a helicopter via 'Air Ghislaine' were standard asset protection strategies used by the wealthy. She draws a parallel to Epstein placing cars in Palm Beach under pilot Larry Visoski's name to show that Epstein frequently put assets in employees' names.

Court transcript (summation/closing arguments)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017150.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney. Menninger argues that a witness is not credible because she had multiple opportunities in the past, including a deposition in 2009, to name Ghislaine Maxwell as an accomplice but failed to do so. The speaker also points to evidence, such as message pads, that will be given to the jury and allegedly show no incriminating messages for Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017135.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a legal summation. The speaker first attempts to discredit an unnamed witness by claiming she was paid $5 million by the government and that her stories of flying are uncorroborated. The speaker then discusses the testimony of Annie Farmer, a psychologist, stating the court has instructed that the alleged incident with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not illegal as charged, and that it was Annie's sister, Maria, who worked for Epstein and introduced them.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017130.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney. Menninger argues against the government's attempt to identify her client, Michelle, as a random person from an address book, asserting she is a specific individual who was friends with another woman, Emmy. She attacks the credibility of a key witness, Jane, accusing her of a pattern of fabricating accusations by picking names of people she knew from "Epstein's world."

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017128.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically the summation by Ms. Menninger, likely the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger attacks the credibility of a witness's testimony, highlighting the witness's uncertainty about how many times Maxwell was present during alleged "orgies" orchestrated by Epstein. The summation also points out that other women allegedly present at these events, which involved a 14-year-old girl, did not report them to the police.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017126.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely a defense attorney. Menninger argues against the credibility of a witness named 'Jane' by suggesting her memory of abuse in New Mexico was implanted by the government's repeated questioning. The attorney emphasizes that Jane does not recall Ghislaine being present with Jeffrey Epstein during any of the alleged abuse, which is a central point for the case.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017125.jpg

This document is a page from the closing arguments (summation) of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), delivered by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The text focuses on attacking the credibility of a witness by highlighting a major inconsistency between her court testimony (claiming abuse started in a Florida pool house) and a December 2019 FBI interview (claiming abuse started at age 14 in New York during a headshot session). Menninger references expert testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding memory and trauma to suggest the witness's story is unreliable.

Court transcript / summation
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017054.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a summation given by Ms. Moe on August 10, 2022. Ms. Moe argues to the jury that the defense's attempt to discredit a witness named Jane by calling other women named Michelle and Ava to testify is a meaningless distraction. She emphasizes that Jane never identified the specific individuals Michelle Healey or Eva Dubin, and points out that Epstein and Maxwell's contact book contained multiple people with those common first names.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017035.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (summation by Ms. Moe) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor argues that Ghislaine Maxwell was fully aware of and managed the abuse in Epstein's Palm Beach home, citing a 2002 document authored by 'G. Max' listing massage oils, and testimony from Mr. Alessi regarding the cleaning and storage of sex toys in Maxwell's closet.

Court transcript (summation/closing argument)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017028.jpg

This document is a transcript from a trial, specifically during the closing arguments phase. Ms. Moe will present the closing argument for the government, and Ms. Menninger will present the closing argument for the defense.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017003.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The discussion centers on the precise wording of a jury instruction concerning "uncalled witnesses," with Mr. Everdell proposing a modification and Mr. Rohrbach defending the standard instruction used in the district.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016931.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Judge regarding jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. 1591 (sex trafficking). The discussion focuses on whether 'foreign commerce' elements apply to charges involving Virginia Roberts versus Carolyn, with the defense/court noting a lack of evidence regarding Maxwell enticing Roberts specifically.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016926.jpg

This document is an exhibit list from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. It enumerates exhibits submitted by both the defendant and the government, indicating the page numbers where they were received into evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016916.jpg

This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing discussions and stipulations regarding the admission of various exhibits (A-1, A-2, DH1, DH2, DH3, J2, DH4) during a legal proceeding. Attorneys MS. COMEY and MR. EVERDELL, along with THE COURT, discuss the admissibility of Palm Beach County school records pertaining to individuals named Virginia Robertson and Jane, and the potential testimony of witness Dominique Hyppolite. The government also requested that Exhibit J2 be accepted under seal.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016831.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the direct examination of Dr. Dubin (likely Eva Dubin) in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). During questioning by prosecutor Mr. Pagliuca, Dr. Dubin reviews Government Exhibit 248, a photograph she states she has never seen before. She identifies the individuals in the photo as Mr. Epstein and her oldest child (age 27).

Court transcript (testimony)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016829.jpg

This document is page 100 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is conducting a direct examination of Dr. Eva Dubin. Dr. Dubin testifies that she did not observe inappropriate conduct between Jeffrey Epstein and teenage females during the period roughly between 1994 and 2004, after she stopped dating him. The court then proceeds to discuss the presentation of sealed Government Exhibit 241 (photos) to the witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016813.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a sidebar conversation where counsel Ms. Comey attempts to introduce prior consistent statements of a witness named Jane, which is objected to by opposing counsel Ms. Menninger. The Court sustains the objection on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the current examination but allows for the possibility of recalling the witness for rebuttal.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016770.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney argues to a judge that the government failed to properly investigate information provided by witnesses, which is probative of the defendant's innocence. The attorney cites the 'Watson case' as precedent where law enforcement prematurely concluded guilt and then begins to question a witness about conversations with a person named 'Jane' regarding 'group sexualized massages'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016769.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney argues that the government's investigation was not thorough. The attorney uses the example of a witness, Jane, who testified about her involvement in 'sexualized massages' and named other participants, including a 'Michelle'. The attorney claims that despite this information, the government failed to follow up and interview Michelle and others, arguing this lack of diligence is significant to the case.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016766.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge warns Mr. Everdell that his intended line of questioning for a witness—focusing on what the government didn't do—would violate a prior court order. Mr. Everdell defends his approach as an attempt to elicit evidence about the absence of evidence, but the judge reiterates that the jury's role is to evaluate the evidence the government did present.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, before a judge. The discussion centers on the extent to which the defense can question the thoroughness of the government's investigation and comment on the absence of evidence. The judge clarifies that while direct testimony about why certain investigative steps were or were not taken is restricted, the defense is permitted to make arguments to the jury based on the absence of evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016759.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell). The conversation centers on the prior testimony of a witness named Jane, specifically her memory of a trip to New York around 1997 and whether that memory was influenced by her attorney, Mr. Rossmiller. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, also informs the court of their intent to call Special Agent Amanda Young as a witness.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016727.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Ms. Menninger expresses concern that the government's rebuttal might become a second closing argument and requests the court enforce a rule to limit its scope. In response, attorney Ms. Comey assures the judge that the rebuttal will be significantly shorter than the closing, adhering to the standard practice in the district, a position the court affirms.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016656.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on a psychological study Loftus conducted, which successfully implanted false memories in participants by suggesting they had met the Warner Brothers character Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. The transcript concludes with an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, objecting to the line of questioning.

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