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-00017278.jpg

This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures the end of a day's proceedings, where the judge (THE COURT) confirms with counsel (Ms. Moe for the government and Ms. Sternheim) that there are no further matters. The court is then adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on December 21, 2021.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017276.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, regarding a juror seating chart. The judge then reads a note from the deliberating jury stating they are leaving at 5:30 PM. The judge announces the note will be marked as an exhibit and that the jury will be given instructions to resume deliberations in the morning.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017268.jpg

This document is a transcript of a judge's charge to the jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge provides final instructions before deliberations, covering communication protocols with the court, the proper use of personal notes, and the jury's duty to weigh the evidence. The core task outlined is for the jury to determine if the government has proven its case against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017243.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript detailing jury instructions regarding overt acts in a conspiracy charge. It lists specific allegations against Maxwell involving minors named Jane, Annie, and Carolyn, describing events such as travel for sexual abuse and unsolicited massages in locations like New York, Florida, and New Mexico.

Court transcript / jury charge
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017240.jpg

This document is a page from a jury charge in a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) against Ms. Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. The text instructs the jury on the legal standards for proving participation in a conspiracy, clarifying that the government does not need to show that Ms. Maxwell knew all the details, activities, or members of the conspiracy. It also states that she is responsible for all acts of the conspiracy committed while she was a member, regardless of when she joined.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017239.jpg

This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a portion of a charge or jury instruction concerning Ms. Maxwell. It defines the terms 'knowingly and willfully' and explains that for a conviction on a conspiracy charge, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell consciously intended to join and further an unlawful operation. The text instructs that since one cannot directly know a person's thoughts, the jury must infer knowledge and intent from evidence, such as alleged conversations involving Ms. Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017230.jpg

This document is a page from a legal charge (jury instruction) filed on August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It outlines the legal theory of "aiding and abetting," explaining that a defendant, specifically named as Ms. Maxwell, can be convicted for assisting in a crime even if she did not physically commit it herself. The text provides definitions for key terms like "counsel," "induce," and "procure" to guide the jury's deliberation.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017225.jpg

This document is page 204 of a court transcript (Document 767, filed 08/10/22) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instructions 22, 23, and the start of 24. The text outlines the legal standards for Count Four (transportation of a minor), specifically requiring the government to prove Ms. Maxwell knew 'Jane' was under 17, and clarifying that the failure to actually accomplish the intended illegal sexual activity is not a defense.

Court transcript / jury instructions
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017223.jpg

This document is a page from a legal proceeding, specifically a judge's charge to the jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the first element of Count Four, which accuses the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, of knowingly transporting a minor named Jane in interstate commerce between 1994 and 1997 for illegal sexual activity. The charge clarifies that the prosecution must prove Ms. Maxwell was actively involved in arranging the travel, but not necessarily that she physically transported Jane herself.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013940.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. Espinosa identifies Sarah Kellen in a photograph (Government's Exhibit 327) and testifies that Kellen arrived towards the end of Espinosa's employment, specifically between 2000 and 2002. Espinosa states she did not know Kellen's specific job title but observed that Kellen accompanied Jeffrey Epstein to his properties and was essentially always where he was.

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

DOJ-OGR-00013939.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness identifies Sarah Kellen as having occupied an office previously used by Ghislaine. The transcript also captures a procedural discussion between the attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Pomerantz) and the judge regarding the presentation of Government's Exhibit 327 to the jury.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013886.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and Government attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding trial logistics. Key topics include scheduling a charging conference for Saturday at 9 a.m. with public access, limiting testimony about a 'soap opera' by name, and the Defense's plan to show single copies of newly received photos to the jury by walking past the jury box.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013855.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which a representative for the government discusses trial logistics with the court. The speaker mentions a potential rebuttal expert, affirms the government's readiness to proceed to closing arguments immediately after the defense rests, and raises the need to coordinate with the defense on the mechanics of presenting sealed and public exhibits to the jury.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013847.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (represented by Ms. Moe and others) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the timeline for redacting government and defense exhibits. The Court agrees to allow the parties to resolve these redaction issues and an attorney-client privilege issue over the upcoming weekend.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013828.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The judge informs the jury that the government has rested its case and provides strict instructions for them to avoid any media or discussion about the case during a five-day recess. After the jury is excused, a defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, begins to address the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013813.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Swain, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony covers Ms. Swain's relationship with a young woman named Annie, including discussions about college, and also touches on an individual named Maria who lived in New York in 1995. The witness confirms having spoken with Jeffrey Epstein on the phone, and the transcript records a sustained hearsay objection by another attorney, Ms. Menninger.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013809.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures the end of a witness's, Mr. Mulligan's, testimony where he describes conversations with someone named Annie about New Mexico as 'memorable' and 'emotional.' After Mr. Mulligan is excused, the government calls its next witness, Janice Swain.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013796.jpg

This document contains a page from the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Mulligan in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Mulligan testifies that he dated Annie Farmer in high school during the fall/winter of 1996. He confirms that Annie Farmer told him she went to Thailand in the summer of 1996 and that the trip was paid for by Jeffrey Epstein.

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

DOJ-OGR-00013794.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the beginning of the direct examination of David James Mulligan. After being sworn in as a witness for the Government, Mulligan states his name for the record. Attorney Ms. Pomerantz then begins her questioning, establishing basic background information about Mulligan, including his age (42), his state of origin (Arizona), and his level of education (master's degree).

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013788.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, associated with the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It records the conclusion of testimony by witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer), with both Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Menninger stating they have no further questions. The government then attempts to call David Mulligan as the next witness, but Ms. Sternheim interrupts to request a sidebar/conference with the judge.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013770.jpg

This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of witness A. Farmer (likely Annie Farmer) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Farmer about an incident of sexual abuse in a movie theater and introduces a document (Exhibit AF-14), which is a release form signed by Farmer in October 2020. The testimony confirms that Farmer received $1.5 million from the Victims Compensation Program.

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

DOJ-OGR-00013739.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, conducted by Ms. Menninger, centers on a foot massage involving a Mr. Epstein and whether Ms. Farmer previously told the government she did not remember it being sexualized. Ms. Farmer clarifies that while she felt it was 'sexualized to some degree,' it did not involve inappropriate touching, and the exchange is marked by several sustained objections from another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013730.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger. The testimony confirms that Farmer provided a pair of cowboy boots—allegedly purchased for her by Mr. Epstein—to an FBI agent in Texas around June 29th. These boots are introduced into evidence as exhibit AF9.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013725.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named A. Farmer. The questioning focuses on the witness's inability to recall the names or faces of people who worked at a ranch where the witness was staying. Farmer specifically mentions having a vague image of a "ranch hand" but cannot identify them, and confirms they do not recall the government showing them photographs to refresh their memory.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013702.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Farmer. The questioning establishes that the government possesses only photocopied pages of a journal, not the physical object, and confirms the journal contains no entries about a trip the witness took to New Mexico.

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