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 action The Government charged Maxwell with perjury in connection with civil cases. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding An appeal by Maxwell regarding an Order to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding A pending criminal case involving the parties. District Court View
N/A Legal proceeding A bail revocation hearing in the LaFontaine case that lasted three days and involved a significan... Court View
N/A Investigation The government has been investigating the case for ten years. N/A View
N/A Legal argument The Appellant argues that all charges are barred by the five-year statute of limitations for nonc... this Circuit View
N/A Legal proceeding Discussion in court about Court Exhibit #15, where the government clarified the scope of the jury... Court View
N/A Victim notification The government notified six individuals, who were proved at trial to be directly impacted by the ... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The Government submits that the Court should conduct a questioning of Juror 50 to determine poten... N/A View
N/A Trial The document describes the procedural steps of a criminal trial, including opening statements, pr... Court View
N/A Negotiation Negotiations between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding A grand jury subpoena was issued as part of a government investigation. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding A motion for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell, based on issues with a juror's answers during voir dire. N/A View
N/A Proposed hearing A potential 'Show Hearing' is mentioned, which the filing argues the Court should reject and outl... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The trial of Ms. Maxwell, where the government argued its theory of a single conspiracy to the jury. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Jury instruction (Instruction No. 15) for Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activ... N/A View
N/A Investigation A government investigation was conducted. N/A View
N/A N/A Filing of a criminal complaint District Court View
N/A Jury instruction A judge provides Instruction No. 39 to the jury regarding the legal concept of 'Conscious Avoidan... N/A View
N/A Grand jury proceeding The document discusses the potential disclosure of materials from a grand jury proceeding. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding An interlocutory appeal by Maxwell concerning an unsealing order, which the document argues shoul... N/A View
N/A Legal case The photograph is marked as Exhibit 256 for the legal case S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN). N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Jury instruction within the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE regarding the use of electronic communic... N/A View
N/A Seizure of evidence The Government seized electronic communications from computers or electronic accounts to be used ... N/A View
N/A Criminal case A criminal case, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, in which Ms. Maxwell is the defendant. N/A View

DOJ-OGR-00016635.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim, over the admissibility of a question for a witness. The judge sustains an objection on '401 ground', limiting the line of questioning. The transcript concludes with the court preparing to bring in the jury and call witnesses Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Williams to testify.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016620.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. With the jury not present, the judge excuses a witness for a break and then discusses procedural matters with the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell). The primary focus is on resolving 'prior inconsistent statements,' with the judge urging the lawyers to confer and narrow the points of disagreement.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016586.jpg

This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It records the beginning of the direct examination of Elizabeth Loftus, a professor and scientist, who was called as a witness by the defense. The transcript includes exchanges between Ms. Sternheim (defense counsel), Mr. Everdell, and the presiding Judge, as Professor Loftus starts to explain her role to the jury.

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

DOJ-OGR-00016510.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge, a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell), and a government attorney (Mr. Rohrbach). The judge arranges a charging conference for the upcoming Saturday morning and discusses ensuring public access. Mr. Everdell then raises a logistical issue concerning the presentation of photo evidence to the jury, as they have only just received a single physical copy of the photos.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016502.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, generally associated with the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings cover rulings on the testimony of Dr. Loftus regarding suggestive questioning and Agent Young. The court then addresses a motion to preclude the testimony of a witness named Alexander Hamilton, leading to a joke by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim about Broadway tickets and a counter-quote by the Judge referencing Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016500.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between counsel (Mr. Rohrbach) and the court. The parties discuss the potential testimony of Mr. Grumbridge regarding the ownership of a property called Stanhope Mews and agree to confer on a stipulation. The court then moves to address a government motion to exclude parts of the anticipated expert testimony of Dr. Loftus concerning suggestive investigative and therapeutic techniques.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016496.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit property records showing the O'Neill family, not his client Ms. Maxwell, owned a property until 1997. This is intended to counter government testimony that Ms. Maxwell lived there starting in 1992, but the judge emphasizes that the key legal question is residence, not ownership.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016488.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The court discusses the preclusion of testimony from witnesses Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards on 401/403 grounds, allowing the defense to release them. Additionally, the court addresses a government objection to a defense exhibit regarding a 1996 sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street in London.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016480.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. A government prosecutor addresses the Court regarding the potential calling of a rebuttal expert and the logistics of closing arguments, specifically how to present sealed exhibits to the jury without making them public. The speaker emphasizes coordination with the defense to ensure the process runs smoothly.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016479.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the trial schedule, specifically concerns about the jury having enough time to deliberate before the upcoming holiday season (referencing 'the 27th'). The defense argues against rushing the jury, while the Judge admonishes that closing arguments cannot be delayed until after the holiday.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016472.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) recording a discussion between the prosecution (represented by Ms. Moe) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the timeline for redacting government and defense exhibits. The prosecution argues against a 'fire drill' urgency, proposing to resolve issues over the weekend, which the Court accepts. The discussion then pivots to an attorney-client privilege issue.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016471.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the public release of evidence. Defense counsel Ms. Menninger urges the judge to compel the government to immediately submit any final redactions for defense exhibits J-8/9 and J-15, citing delays and media interest. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, begins to address the court on the same topic, noting a recent conversation she had with a Ms. Sternheim about the redactions.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016453.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the judge's instructions to the jury after the government has rested its case. The judge dismisses the jury for a five-day break, admonishing them not to discuss the case or consume media about it, and schedules the trial to resume on Thursday morning with the defense's case. After the jury is excused, defense counsel Mr. Everdell begins to address the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016448.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a sidebar discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. Ms. Menninger argues she should be allowed to question a witness about Jeffrey Epstein to impeach his credibility under federal rules of evidence, while Ms. Moe objects that the line of questioning is argumentative. The judge resolves the dispute by permitting Ms. Menninger to ask only three questions on the topic before moving on.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016438.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Swain. The witness identifies a girl named Annie from a photograph (Government Exhibit 101) and discusses college plans. The testimony also establishes that a woman named Maria lived in New York in 1995 working as an artist, and concludes with the witness confirming they spoke with Jeffrey Epstein on the phone.

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

DOJ-OGR-00016436.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Swain, by attorney Ms. Pomerantz, where the witness identifies Maria Farmer's middle child as Annie Farmer. The questioning then leads to the identification of Government Exhibit 13 as Annie Farmer's birth certificate.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016434.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the end of the testimony of a witness named Mulligan, who speaks briefly about a memorable conversation with someone named Annie regarding New Mexico. After Mulligan is excused, the government's attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, calls the next witness, Janice Swain.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016419.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 759) dated August 10, 2022. It records the swearing-in and initial direct examination of witness David James Mulligan by Ms. Pomerantz for the Government. Mulligan establishes his identity, age (42), background (from Arizona), and education level (master's degree).

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

DOJ-OGR-00016413.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the end of witness A. Farmer's testimony. After attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Menninger state they have no further questions, the court excuses the witness. Ms. Pomerantz, representing the government, then calls the next witness, David Mulligan, to the stand.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016383.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer. The questioning focuses on discrepancies between her current testimony and prior statements made to a victims' compensation fund and the government regarding massages she received from Mr. Epstein. The questions highlight details such as Epstein staring and groaning during a foot massage, and another massage in New Mexico where her chest and breast were touched.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013270.jpg

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge (The Court), government counsel (Ms. Moe), and another counsel (Mr. Everdell) about scheduling a charging conference and determining when the defense will rest its case. The parties discuss potential dates, including December 18th, and the possibility of the defense resting on the upcoming Thursday, with the timing contingent on the length of witness cross-examinations.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013221.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a legal debate between Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the testimony of a witness named Carolyn. Ms. Comey argues that the witness did not specify a time frame for an alleged act, while Mr. Pagliuca contends that her testimony about the frequency of the act (up to four times a week) contradicts a complaint that alleges it happened twice a month. The judge intervenes to manage the procedural aspects of their arguments.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013172.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the judge (The Court), Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach about several procedural matters. Key topics include the low probability of calling a certain 'brother' as a witness, a past request from a November 23rd pretrial conference to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with experts, and the government's request to speak with a witness named Jane about logistics after her testimony.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013168.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (Mr. Rohrbach). The judge expresses concern about potential improper communication of testimony from a witness named Jane to her brother, suggesting a violation of the 'spirit' of a court rule. The judge recommends a full review of text and email communications and an interview with Jane to ensure there are no other conduits of information.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013113.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. The witness identifies Government Exhibit 104 as a photograph of herself at age 14, taken when she visited Jeffrey Epstein's house. The exhibit is admitted under seal to protect her anonymity.

Court transcript / trial testimony
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