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-00010770.jpg
This document is page 17 of 353 from a court filing (Document 688, filed June 29, 2022) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It displays a portion of a jury questionnaire filled out by 'Juror ID: 2'. The juror indicates 'No' to questions regarding whether previous experiences would prevent impartiality, whether they have financial disputes with the government, and whether they or their family work in law enforcement or the justice system.
DOJ-OGR-00010764.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 29, 2022. The respondent, Juror ID 2, affirms that they have no beliefs that would prevent them from rendering a verdict in a criminal case. The juror also confirms their acceptance of fundamental legal principles, including the roles of the judge and jury, the presumption of innocence for the defendant, and the government's burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00010760.jpg
This document is a juror questionnaire for the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which commenced on November 29, 2021. It provides a summary of the case, outlining the six counts in the indictment against Maxwell for allegedly conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004 to entice and transport minors for criminal sexual activity. The document also affirms that Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the government beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on June 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The judge denies the Defendant's request to redact statements related to victims Annie Farmer, Kate, and Giuffre, ruling that the documents are judicial records subject to public access under the First Amendment. The court argues that the Defendant's concerns do not outweigh the presumption of public access, noting that the Court (as decision-maker) can evaluate the submissions without prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00010744.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. The order addresses the rights of victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to be heard at sentencing. The court grants the request for three individuals, Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre, to make oral statements at the sentencing, noting that the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, does not object to their inclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00010738.jpg
This document provides the factual background for the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing her conviction for a sex trafficking conspiracy involving Jeffrey Epstein. It argues that a victim named Kate, who testified about being groomed and abused at age seventeen, has the right to speak at the sentencing to provide insight and experience catharsis.
DOJ-OGR-00010693.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that two of Ghislaine Maxwell's victims, Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein, should be permitted to give oral victim impact statements at her upcoming sentencing. It provides factual background on the sex trafficking conspiracy Maxwell and her coconspirator, Jeffrey Epstein, ran for over a decade. The document details how they targeted young women, like Ransome and Stein, who came to New York for the fashion industry, by preying on their vulnerabilities and promising career advancement in exchange for sexual favors.
DOJ-OGR-00010593.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, discusses the victim impact statements of seven women in a case involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. It argues their standing as statutory victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), noting that only Annie Farmer and Virginia Giuffre were minors during the relevant period of the charged offenses. The document contends that allegations of abuse alone are insufficient and must be directly linked to the federal offense conduct, which requires the victim to have been a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00010581.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's request for a lenient sentence. The prosecution refutes the defendant's claims of harsh pretrial confinement conditions, stating the Court was well-informed and the conditions did not warrant a downward variance. The filing also dismisses the defendant's comparison to the Harvey Weinstein case, asserting that her federal child exploitation crimes are different and warrant a significant sentence, citing a similar case (United States v. Maria Soly Almonte) as precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00010428.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, argues that the defendant's offense conduct concluded by summer 2004. It disputes the validity of unauthenticated message slips (GX 4) presented by the government, contrasting them with other message books (GX 1-3) that were authenticated by Juan Alessi and Nicole Hesse and admitted into evidence. A footnote references a 2007 FBI interview with a victim, Carolyn, who stated her interactions with Epstein began when she was 14 and ended when she was 17.
DOJ-OGR-00010404.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling denying a motion from the Defendant, Maxwell. The Defendant argued that the Government's delay in bringing charges prejudiced her ability to prepare a defense, but the Court found no evidence that the delay was intentional or for tactical advantage. The Court reaffirms its previous rulings and notes that trial testimony provided legitimate explanations for the timing of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00010403.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion denying a defendant's post-trial motions. The court rejects the defendant's argument that a witness's (Jane's) testimony caused "ultimate prejudice" leading to improper convictions on Mann Act counts. The court also denies the defendant's claim of prejudicial pre-indictment delay, stating that the defendant failed to meet the stringent two-part legal test required to prove such a claim.
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, defends the court's decision to reject the defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues the requested instructions were unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate, particularly the claim that sexual activity outside New York could not form the basis for the charges. The document asserts that the existing jury charge correctly focused the inquiry on the violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, specifically concerning the overt act of transporting the victim, Jane, from Florida to New York for the purpose of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010396.jpg
This document page is from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated April 29, 2022, concerning the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses a dispute over the interpretation of a jury note regarding 'Count Four,' specifically whether the jury was considering conduct in New Mexico versus New York state law. The text details arguments about a missing comma in the note and the Court's instruction that New York law was the governing statute, even if New Mexico events were relevant to intent.
DOJ-OGR-00010394.jpg
This legal document is part of a court filing arguing that the government's summation during a trial did not constructively amend the indictment. The prosecution consistently maintained that the defendant and an associate, Epstein, transported underage girls like "Jane" to New York with the intent for them to be sexually abused there. The defense counters that a jury note suggests the conviction was based on intent for activity in New Mexico, not New York, and that the court erred by not providing a supplemental instruction to clarify this point.
DOJ-OGR-00010393.jpg
This page details the Government's evidence regarding the Defendant (Maxwell) and Epstein's criminal scheme, focusing on the testimony of a victim named Jane. It describes how Jane was groomed and trafficked across state lines, including trips to New York, Florida, and New Mexico, for sexual activity with Epstein, facilitated by the Defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00010391.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 29, 2022. It discusses the court's jury instructions regarding the Mann Act and the predicate New York Penal Law Section 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact with individuals under seventeen. The text specifically mentions counts related to the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' and the enticement of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal distinction between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment. It cites numerous precedents to argue that for a variance to warrant reversal of a conviction, the defendant must demonstrate 'substantial prejudice'. The document concludes by noting that the Defendant has filed a motion under Rule 33 to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010382.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The page details the Court's denial of the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, citing various legal precedents regarding the sufficiency of evidence required to sustain a conviction. The text outlines the legal standard that evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00010381.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 29, 2022, argues that two counts against the defendant (Count Three and Count Five) are multiplicitous and constitute double jeopardy. The argument is based on the government's own trial presentation, which framed the defendant's actions with co-conspirator Epstein as a single, decade-long conspiracy or "scheme." Citing legal precedents like Korfant and Josephberg, the document contends the proper remedy is for the court to enter judgment on only one of the two counts.
DOJ-OGR-00010379.jpg
This legal document details how the Defendant and Epstein used financial gifts and payments as a method of grooming victims like Jane and Annie, paying for things like lessons, school, and promising trips. The document also discusses the geographic scope of the criminal conspiracy, noting that while specific counts focused on New York and Florida, witnesses testified to sexual conduct occurring in New Mexico and London as well. The text highlights the testimony of victims, including Carolyn and Virginia Roberts, who were paid for sexualized massages.
DOJ-OGR-00010378.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a single, continuous conspiracy of abuse existed for over a decade, involving a defendant and Epstein. It dismisses the distinction between an 'earlier phase' and a later 'pyramid scheme,' asserting that massage was the consistent, primary method used throughout to normalize contact with minor victims and facilitate sexual abuse. The document cites trial testimony to support the claim that the defendant played an essential role in this scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00010373.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes two conspiracy counts against a defendant. Count Three (1994-2004) alleges violations of the Mann Act based on testimony from victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie Farmer. Count Five (2001-2004) alleges violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act based on evidence related to Carolyn and Virginia Roberts. The defendant contends that Count Five is a subset of Count Three, an argument with which the Court agrees.
DOJ-OGR-00010372.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, outlines the Second Circuit's legal framework for determining whether multiple charges constitute a single conspiracy or distinct conspiracies, thereby implicating double jeopardy concerns. It details the eight 'Korfant factors' used in this analysis and describes the burden-shifting framework where a defendant must first make a non-frivolous showing of a single conspiracy, after which the burden shifts to the Government to prove otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00010363.jpg
In this court order dated April 1, 2022, Judge Alison J. Nathan denies the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) motion for a new trial, concluding that Juror 50 harbored no bias and the selection process was not deliberately flawed. The Court orders a presentence investigation report and confirms that sentencing remains scheduled for June 28, 2022. Additionally, time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act regarding specific counts through April 22, 2022.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity