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-00009613.jpg

This is the conclusion and signature page of a legal filing by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Government submits that the Court should grant the defendant's motion regarding 'Count One' but deny all other post-trial motions. The document is dated February 25, 2022, and signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and four Assistant US Attorneys.

Legal filing (court motion conclusion/signature page)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009612.jpg

This legal document excerpt details the conviction of 'the defendant' on multiple counts related to sex trafficking and exploitation. It outlines evidence showing the defendant's involvement in transporting and abusing Jane with Epstein, arranging sex acts for Carolyn with Epstein for money, and recruiting Virginia, all while they were minors. The document emphasizes that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict despite defense arguments regarding victim credibility.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009610.jpg

This document is page 48 of a court filing (Document 621) from February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues that the Court should deny Maxwell's Rule 29 motion for acquittal, specifically addressing Count One (conspiracy). The text references testimony from a victim named 'Jane' who stated she was abused by both Epstein and Maxwell in New York and was groomed through methods including 'field trips.'

Court filing (government memorandum of law)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg

This document constitutes page 46 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 25, 2022. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove that the Government intentionally delayed her indictment to gain a 'tactical advantage,' citing numerous Second Circuit legal precedents to support this standard. The court dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding the delay as 'specious' and notes a lack of evidence that the delay was intended to thwart her defense.

Legal filing / court order
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing by the government in a criminal case, dated February 25, 2022. The government argues against a defendant's motion, asserting that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay are speculative and unsupported by evidence. The government specifically refutes the defendant's argument that lost flight manifests would have been helpful to the defense, citing legal precedents to argue that the defendant has failed to meet the heavy burden of proving actual prejudice.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009605.jpg

This document, a legal filing from February 25, 2022, discusses the defendant's arguments regarding the availability and completeness of phone records and flight manifests in a criminal case. The defendant claims that Carolyn's testimony could have been disproven by phone records and that flight manifests would have helped challenge Jane's recollections, but the document refutes these claims, citing testimony from Visoski and Rodgers about the handling and incompleteness of flight manifests.

Legal document / court filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009604.jpg

This legal document is a filing that argues against a defendant's motion claiming prejudice. The defendant alleges that the unavailability of 'critical documentary records'—such as flight, financial, and property records related to Epstein—prevented her from challenging government assertions and testimony from a witness named Jane. The filing contends that the defendant's claims are speculative and fail to demonstrate what the missing records would have shown or that they would have been favorable to her defense.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009597.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant's (Maxwell's) due process claim should be denied. The court asserts that she has failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from a pre-indictment delay or that the Government's delay was for an improper purpose. The document cites legal precedents, including United States v. Marion, to emphasize that the statute of limitations is the main safeguard against stale charges and that cases brought within that period hold a strong presumption of validity.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009591.jpg

This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, argues that two criminal charges, Count Three and Count Five, are substantially different and not redundant. It distinguishes them based on different underlying statutes (including the Mann Act and Trafficking Victims Protection Act), differing ages of consent (17 in New York vs. 18), geographic locations (New York vs. Florida), and the specific victims involved, including Jane, Annie Farmer, and Virginia Roberts. The document cites flight records and testimony from pilot David Rodgers as evidence of Virginia Roberts traveling with the defendant and Epstein at age 17.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009586.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant was not legally prejudiced regarding witness testimony. It outlines that the defense received notes on witness Jane more than three weeks before trial and that the court's decision to permit witness Kate to testify came almost two weeks after notes were received, providing ample time for preparation. The filing cites legal precedents to assert that the court did not err in its handling of limiting instructions and that any failure to request them was the defendant's own, not a basis for a prejudice claim.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg

This legal document, page 22 of a court filing from February 25, 2022, presents the prosecution's argument against the defendant's claim of a constructive amendment to their indictment. The prosecution asserts that the S2 Indictment for Mann Act offenses was consistent with the evidence presented and jury instructions, citing the D'Amelio case. A footnote further argues that even if one count was flawed, based on jury notes concerning Annie Farmer's testimony about abuse in New Mexico, it would not invalidate the other conspiracy counts, citing the Pfaff and Milstein cases.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009575.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, refutes the defendant's argument that a constructive amendment occurred during trial. The prosecution argues that Jane's testimony about events in New Mexico was permissibly used to prove the defendant's intent for abuse to occur in New York. The document asserts that the jury was not erroneously convicted on a theory of guilt for crimes in New Mexico, as this was not pursued by the Government or allowed by jury instructions.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009571.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a legal filing, dated February 25, 2022, detailing the Government's arguments in a criminal case. It focuses on the alleged enticement and transportation of individuals, specifically 'Jane,' by Maxwell, Epstein, and the defendant across state lines to New York for abuse, emphasizing the intent behind these actions as sufficient for a Mann Act violation. The document also mentions the alleged grooming of 'Annie' by the defendant after she had visited Epstein in New York, and the intent of the defendant and Epstein to abuse 'Carolyn' and 'Annie'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009529.jpg

This legal document, filed on March 18, 2013, details the background and alleged criminal conduct of a defendant named Parse. It outlines his education at the University of Michigan and his extensive career 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 participation in a fraudulent tax shelter scheme where he advised shareholders of the Calphalon cookware company, including the Kasperzak family, on the disposition of stock from a sale.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009448.jpg

This document is page 2 of a legal opinion or declaration filed in April 2012 (and re-filed in 2022) regarding the ethical conduct of lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard. The text argues that the lawyers had no obligation to disclose certain research regarding juror Catherine Conrad at specific times. It lists various documents reviewed, including briefs, letters, and hearing transcripts from 2011 and 2012, and cites New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

Legal opinion / declaration
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009419.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. In the proceeding, the Government (represented by Mr. Okula) rests its case after admitting Exhibit 10 into evidence. Subsequently, defense attorney Mr. Shechtman begins the defense case for 'Defendant Parse' by calling Paul Schoeman as a witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, likely a deposition or court proceeding, where attorney Mr. Okula is questioning Ms. Edelstein. The questioning focuses on the ethical and professional obligations of Ms. Edelstein's firm regarding their knowledge of facts related to a 'government note' and a 'Catherine Conrad letter' before a motion was decided. Ms. Edelstein, Theresa Trzaskoma, and Susan Brune are mentioned as individuals at the firm who possessed this knowledge.

Legal transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009407.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript involving the questioning of a witness named Edelstein by Mr. Okula. The testimony centers on the drafting of a legal brief submitted for a new trial motion, specifically regarding when the defense team (Edelstein and Susan Brune) learned about an Appellate Division report relative to receiving a government letter. The questioning also highlights that the brief was signed by Brune in New York and Edelstein in San Francisco.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009373.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 312, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) documenting the redirect examination of a witness named Ms. Brune by Mr. Davis. The proceedings involve the identification and admission of 'Government Exhibit 28,' which is described as a July 21st letter written by Ms. Brune to the Court. Following the admission of the letter into evidence without objection from Mr. Shechtman, the questioning turns to a Westlaw report attached as an exhibit.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009363.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune. Ms. Brune, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, is questioned about her ethical standards regarding the disclosure of facts to the court and the government. She defends her past actions by stating she did not believe it was her obligation to raise the opposing side's points and assumed the government had access to the same, if not more, information.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009358.jpg

This document is page 297 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune by attorney Mr. Davis. The questioning focuses on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma regarding a 'suspension opinion' and a 'Westlaw report' that came to light before voir dire. Mr. Davis is pressing the witness to confirm that a Westlaw report was attached to a letter submitted to the court.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009328.jpg

This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (likely related to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, given the case number) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness, identified as 'Brune' (likely defense attorney Susan Brune), is testifying about the defense team's jury research process, specifically regarding juror Catherine M. Conrad. Brune admits that the investigative firm Nardello did not search for Conrad and discusses the timing of when the team focused on the juror's middle initial relative to a letter disclosed by the government.

Court transcript / deposition
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003148.jpg

This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to a defense motion. The Government argues that it is not required to produce pages from a personal diary belonging to a third-party victim because the diary is not in its custody or control. Furthermore, the Government asserts that it has already inquired with the victim, who confirmed that no diary entries exist for the relevant time period in the spring of 1996 when she met the defendant while visiting Epstein.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003145.jpg

This legal document is a filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated April 16, 2021. The Government argues that its proposed schedule for providing discovery materials (including Section 3500, Giglio, and Jencks Act information) to the defense is adequate and even exceeds the standard practice in the district for high-profile cases. The Government offers to produce non-testifying witness statements eight weeks before trial and testifying witness materials four weeks in advance, asserting this provides ample time for the defense to prepare.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003141.jpg

This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is part of a prosecution's argument against a defendant's request for a bill of particulars. The prosecution contends that the indictment is sufficiently detailed and that the defendant has already received over 2.7 million pages of discovery, making further specifics unnecessary. A footnote reveals that the Government was unable to obtain records of commercial flights taken by the defendant, Epstein, or any victims because the investigation was opened after the records were no longer available.

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