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-00010345.jpg

This legal document analyzes the motivations of Juror 50 for giving post-trial media interviews in which he disclosed his own past sexual abuse. Juror 50 explained he was inspired by the victims in the trial and believed not using his full name would limit the attention from his personal circle. The court concludes that his actions, including a social media interaction with Annie Farmer, do not suggest he intended to deceive when he completed his juror questionnaire.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010334.jpg

This page is from a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the Court's assessment of 'Juror 50,' who had failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse on a questionnaire; the juror testified that this omission was not intentional and that he could remain impartial. The document also notes the denial of a defense request to stay the ruling pending a documentary featuring the juror.

Federal court order / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010333.jpg

This legal document details the testimony of Juror 50, who explained that his inaccurate answers on a jury questionnaire regarding past abuse were an inadvertent mistake. He attributed the errors to being distracted by a recent breakup and commotion, rushing to finish, and misunderstanding the questions, rather than an intentional failure to disclose. The Court considered this testimony in deciding how to proceed with questioning.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010284.jpg

This legal document argues that the government's charges related to sex trafficking constitute a single, decade-long conspiracy rather than separate offenses. The author points to the similarity in conduct between victims Carolyn (2000s) and Jane (1990s), the overlap of participants like Sarah Kellen, and the consistent location of the Palm Beach residence to support the claim of a single scheme involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The document contends that the government only separated the charges due to a legal technicality regarding the enactment date of a sex trafficking statute.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010281.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the government's consistent theory during trial was that Ms. Maxwell and Epstein engaged in a single, overarching criminal conspiracy, not multiple separate ones. The filing cites the government's own arguments to the jury, which emphasized a 'common playbook' used against four accusers, to contend that the government's current position is a contradictory, 'after-the-fact attempt' to preserve convictions.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010262.jpg

This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, detailing the end of a witness's testimony and a subsequent procedural discussion. A witness denies that reading the case summary, which involves sexual crimes, made them reflect on their own past sexual abuse. After the witness is excused, the judge (THE COURT) discusses the schedule for post-trial briefings with the government's counsel, Ms. Moe.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010219.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a hearing on March 11, 2022, related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The judge confirms on the record with Juror 50 and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding his answers during jury selection. The court also acknowledges receiving a written application from the government, which is confirmed by government representative Ms. Moe.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010208.jpg

This legal document, filed on March 18, 2013, outlines the background and alleged criminal conduct of a defendant named Parse. It details his educational history at the University of Michigan and his extensive work experience as an investment adviser at firms including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank Alex Brown, and his own company, Union Capital LLC. The document introduces Parse's alleged involvement in a fraudulent tax shelter scheme, where he advised shareholders of the Calphalon cookware company on the disposition of stock acquired from a sale.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal argument in court. A lawyer is addressing a judge ('your Honor') about whether a mistake made by a 'Mr. Parse' constituted defrauding the government. The core of the argument revolves around a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad and whether it can be used to infer prejudice, with the lawyer citing Rule 606(b) and a Third Circuit case to argue against its use for that purpose.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010180.jpg

This document is a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues against a motion for a new trial. She references a letter from Catherine Conrad about jury deliberations concerning David Parse, noting the jury struggled with the legal definitions of 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' but ultimately made a deliberate and informed decision, as evidenced by their verdict on conspiracy and tax evasion counts. The discussion highlights the legal nuances that influenced the jury's split verdict.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg

This is page 15 (filed page 47) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues against the concept of backdating in tolling agreements and asserts there is no proof the defendant knew specific rules or discussed transactions. He argues that a 'government partisan' on the jury constitutes a serious error rather than a harmless one, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010127.jpg

This legal document, filed on April 6, 2012, presents an opinion on the ethical obligations of Brune & Richard lawyers concerning disclosures related to a new trial motion involving juror Conrad. It concludes that the lawyers did not violate their ethical obligations in their research, motions, or communications with the Court. The opinion is based on a review of various legal documents and transcripts, and references the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010037.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning centers on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma to the court, where she offered to submit a letter about newly discovered facts. The questioner probes whether a specific 'Westlaw report' was one of these facts.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009846.jpg

This legal document argues against the defendant's position that Juror 50's motion to intervene should be sealed. The author asserts that the motion is a judicial document that should be publicly docketed, citing the case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and refuting the defendant's claims that it is merely a discovery request or that public filing would interfere with testimony. A footnote defends the Government's prior action of publicly filing a letter about Juror 50's public statements, stating it was appropriate and that an attempt was made to confer with defense counsel beforehand.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg

This legal document is a court filing that refutes the defendant's argument that the court failed to properly question Juror 50 about potential biases. The filing asserts that Juror 50 repeatedly confirmed his ability to be impartial and decide the case based on the evidence, and that the court's voir dire process was correct in not delving into specific defense theories, citing legal precedent about the purpose of jury selection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009833.jpg

This legal document argues that a hearing to question Juror 50 should be strictly limited in scope and conducted by the Court itself. The author contends the inquiry should only focus on whether the juror intentionally lied in response to specific voir dire questions and was actually biased, citing legal precedent and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to prevent improper questioning about jury deliberations. This approach is recommended to avoid harassment of the juror regarding sensitive topics like sexual abuse and to prevent the defendant from introducing inadmissible subjects.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009832.jpg

This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should personally conduct a narrowly tailored questioning of Juror 50 to investigate potential bias. The Government contends this approach is necessary to prevent juror harassment and is within the Court's discretion, citing several legal precedents from the Second Circuit and district courts to support its position. The filing opposes the defendant's request for 'pre-hearing discovery' and argues against calling other jurors as witnesses.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009823.jpg

This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues against a defense motion claiming Juror 50 was biased. The Government asserts that Juror 50's post-trial statements and negative attitude toward the defendant reflect the evidence presented during the trial, not pre-existing bias. It cites legal precedents including *United States v. Stewart* to support the argument that jurors bring subjective lived experiences to deliberations.

Legal filing (government response/brief)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009820.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses a hypothetical scenario involving 'Juror 50' and whether a past history of sexual abuse, if disclosed, would have led to a successful challenge for cause. The author argues that the Court would not have automatically dismissed the juror, citing its handling of eight other jurors with similar experiences where follow-up questions were used to confirm impartiality. Because Juror 50 did not disclose any such history, the Government now believes a limited hearing is warranted to ask these questions.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009819.jpg

This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that there is no evidence Juror 50 deliberately lied about his social media use, but acknowledges an inconsistency between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer to a questionnaire. The Government agrees that a limited evidentiary hearing is warranted to determine if the juror answered falsely and whether it was intentional.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009810.jpg

This document is a legal filing by the government arguing against a defendant's motion for a new trial. It cites legal precedent establishing a high bar for granting new trials and uses statements made by 'Juror 50' to The Daily Mail to demonstrate that the jury's deliberations were thorough, methodical, and proper. The government contends that the juror's account shows the verdict was based on evidence and not external pressures or improper considerations.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009805.jpg

This document is page 7 of a court filing (Document 643) from March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details the voir dire responses of five specific jurors (63, 93, 113, 189, 239) who answered 'Question 48' affirmatively regarding past sexual abuse or harassment but were deemed impartial and not challenged for cause by either the prosecution or defense. The document highlights that despite personal histories of abuse, these jurors affirmed their ability to remain fair during the trial.

Court filing / legal brief (post-trial motion response)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009771.jpg

This document is page 14 of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed as part of a court case on March 24, 2022. The juror denies having any financial disputes with the government and also denies that they, any family members, or close friends work in law, law enforcement, the justice system, or the courts. The responses on this page indicate no declared conflicts of interest related to these specific topics.

Juror questionnaire
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009743.jpg

This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that Juror No. 50 was not impartial and failed to honestly disclose his past as a victim of sexual abuse during jury selection. The filing contends that this omission prevented the Court and defense from properly assessing his ability to be fair, particularly regarding the testimony of Dr. Loftus and the defense of Ms. Maxwell. The document suggests that had the juror been truthful, further inquiry would have been made, and his claim of impartiality is not credible.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009673.jpg

This document is a portion of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed on March 9, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The juror denies ever having a financial dispute with the government and also denies that they, their family, or close friends work in law, law enforcement, the justice system, or the courts. The responses suggest no conflicts of interest based on the questions asked on this page.

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