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-00009140.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of the Government's response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that the defendant has failed to satisfy the 'Second Prong of McDonough,' a legal test, regarding Juror 50, who allegedly gave a false answer on a questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse. While finding the defendant's argument unpersuasive, the Government agrees a limited hearing is warranted to determine if the juror's answer was deliberately false and argues the court must decide if it would have granted a challenge for cause, a standard the defendant allegedly omitted.
DOJ-OGR-00009136.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that there is no basis to find that 'Juror 50' committed a 'deliberate falsehood' during the jury selection process (voir dire). It cites several legal precedents, primarily from the Second Circuit, to establish that juror misconduct requires proving intentional deceit, not just an honest mistake or failure to answer. The document concludes that the current record does not meet this high threshold to prove dishonesty by Juror 50.
DOJ-OGR-00009080.jpg
This document is page 13 of a juror questionnaire from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The respondent, Juror ID 50, denies having any financial disputes with the government and also denies that they, their family, or close friends work in law, law enforcement, the justice system, or the courts.
DOJ-OGR-00009051.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that Juror No. 50 provided false answers during jury selection and has subsequently embraced media attention. It contends that the juror's dishonesty prevented proper examination by the court and parties. The document also accuses the government of attempting to silence the juror by writing a letter for media publication, thereby circumventing court orders.
DOJ-OGR-00008954.jpg
This legal document is a motion arguing that Ms. Maxwell's conviction should be vacated and the S2 Indictment dismissed. The defense claims that the government's excessive and prejudicial delay in bringing the prosecution violated her due process rights by causing critical documentary evidence and witnesses to become unavailable. The motion reasserts arguments from previously denied pretrial motions, which the Court had granted leave to renew after the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008953.jpg
This page of a court document discusses the legal arguments regarding the conspiracy charges against Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. It argues that despite violating different statutes, the actions constituted a single criminal agreement to groom and abuse minors, rather than separate independent conspiracies, and analyzes the interdependence between the counts.
DOJ-OGR-00008936.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, details the defense's request for an additional jury instruction concerning Mann Act counts, arguing against conviction based solely on New Mexico conduct. The Court declined this instruction, and the jury subsequently convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four, with charges also in Counts One and Three. The document also cites applicable law regarding constructive amendments, defining them and explaining their impact on a defendant's Grand Jury Clause rights.
DOJ-OGR-00008913.jpg
This document is Page 5 of a Court Order filed on February 11, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court outlines schedules for docketing redacted filings and explicitly denies a motion by 'Juror 50' to intervene in the case regarding a post-verdict inquiry into alleged false voir dire responses. The document also references a motion by the New York Times Company to unseal juror questionnaires.
DOJ-OGR-00019893.jpg
This is a page from a legal document, likely a defense memorandum, filed on July 10, 2020. The text argues against the government's assertion that Ms. Maxwell was 'hiding' from law enforcement after Epstein's arrest, claiming her actions, such as moving and changing her contact information, were necessary measures and not an attempt to evade prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00019872.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, argues that an unnamed defendant is a significant flight risk and should be denied bail. The prosecution asserts that since an indictment against Epstein was unsealed in July 2019, the defendant has been actively hiding, using an alias ('G Max'), changing phone numbers, and purchasing a 156-acre property in New Hampshire with cash through an anonymized LLC. The document concludes that due to her international connections, financial means, and lack of ties to the U.S., no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00019857.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proof regarding Ms. Maxwell's flight risk, citing Supreme Court precedent on bail. It references the case of United States v. Bodmer, where a defendant was released to home confinement with GPS monitoring despite the government's speculative arguments. The document concludes that Ms. Maxwell should receive similar treatment to other defendants granted bond.
DOJ-OGR-00019848.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, likely a brief, arguing that the pretrial detention conditions of a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, are untenable and amount to unconstitutional punishment. The author cites several legal precedents (Stephens, Weigand, Jackson, Melendez-Carrions) to support the claim that her inability to properly review discovery and the prolonged nature of her detention violate due process, especially given the government is seeking a life sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00019834.jpg
This document serves as the 'Issues Presented' section of a legal filing dated April 1, 2021, related to Case 21-58. It outlines two main arguments: 1) Ms. Maxwell cannot prepare her defense due to horrific detention conditions (sleep deprivation, isolation, surveillance, inadequate technology for discovery review, and poor sustenance), and 2) The trial court erred in denying bail based on 'anonymous, unconfronted, hearsay accusations' provided by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00019753.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from July 2020 detailing legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell, including her arraignment where she pleaded not guilty and was denied bail. It records the appearance of her legal team (Pagliuca, Cohen, Everdell), the scheduling of her trial for July 2021, and the judge's orders regarding extrajudicial statements and the rejection of letters from non-parties. The document also lists various filings related to protective orders and discovery deadlines.
DOJ-OGR-00019714.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 28, 2020, denying a defendant's application for release. The Court reaffirms its initial decision, concluding the defendant is a flight risk and that no conditions can ensure her appearance at future proceedings, thus warranting continued pre-trial detention. The order also instructs the parties to submit a joint letter regarding potential redactions by December 30, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019684.jpg
This is page 2 of a court order from an appellate court dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying her motion to consolidate. The document outlines the legal basis for the dismissal, citing the "final judgment rule" in criminal cases and the strict conditions required for collateral order appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00019666.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has taken contradictory positions by intervening in one case (Doe v. Indyke) but not another (Giuffre v. Maxwell). The author contends the government's justification is weak and ignores its own arguments for strict confidentiality in a related criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, suggesting the government should logically oppose unsealing filings in the Giuffre case but has failed to do so without explanation.
DOJ-OGR-00019661.jpg
This legal document, page 15 of a filing in Case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, presents arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It contends that her immediate appeal falls within the 'collateral order doctrine' and will not delay her criminal trial, contrary to the government's suggestion. The document also puts forward an alternative request for the appellate court to issue a writ of mandamus, arguing that Judge Nathan abused her discretion in a previous ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00019660.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020. It argues that the government fails to acknowledge that Ms. Maxwell is prohibited by a protective order (upheld by Judge Nathan) from disclosing specific details. These prohibited disclosures include the identity of a 'Recipient,' materials obtained by the government, details about the bulk of the case against her, and why 'Court-2' declined a government request; all specific details regarding these points are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019658.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It states that her reliance on a protective order is justified, especially in the context of a grand jury investigation. The filing also asserts that information about how the government bypassed an individual named Martindell is relevant and that Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate this issue before Judge Nathan is essential for her due process and a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019650.jpg
This legal document is an introduction to a brief arguing against the government's position in an appeal. It clarifies that Ms. Maxwell's request is narrow: to share sealed information with Judge Preska and the appellate court about how prosecutors obtained her civil deposition material from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case. The brief suggests this information is crucial for the court's decision on unsealing the material and could impact Ms. Maxwell's ability to litigate in her separate criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019641.jpg
This legal document discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that unsealing materials from a past civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) would prejudice her current criminal trial. The author refutes this by contrasting her resolved 2017 civil case with another, active case (Doe v. Indyke), arguing the procedural differences justify the Government's different actions in each. The document concludes that unsealing documents in the Giuffre case poses no risk to the Government's criminal case as discovery is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00019638.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, critiques Ghislaine Maxwell's arguments for keeping criminal discovery materials sealed in her civil cases. The author contends that Maxwell has failed to provide a coherent legal basis for her request and did not adequately explain the relevance of the materials to Judge Nathan. Maxwell's concern is that unsealing the deposition material could prevent her from making future arguments to Judge Nathan regarding alleged government misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
This document is page 24 (PDF page 30) of a legal brief filed by the Government on October 2, 2020. It argues that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion in denying Maxwell's request to modify a Protective Order. The text asserts that Maxwell failed to explain why criminal discovery materials were necessary for pending civil litigation or relevant to First Amendment issues regarding public docketing.
DOJ-OGR-00019636.jpg
This legal document, page 23 of a court filing dated October 2, 2020, argues that Judge Nathan correctly denied a motion by Maxwell. Maxwell sought to use discovery materials from her criminal case in a separate civil litigation, but the judge found her reasons to be "vague, speculative, and conclusory." The document notes that Maxwell had previously consented to a Protective Order prohibiting this and that she was aware the Government had charged her with perjury related to civil cases.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity