GOVERNMENT
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN
|
Witness for prosecution |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juan Alessi
|
Witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Lisa M. Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Employment representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror ID: 2
|
No dispute |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Target of investigation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defendant (Maxwell)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Three different victim-witnesses
|
Witness prosecution |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's counsel
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Prosecutor victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Employee of Florida West Int’l Airways
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Conspirator
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Schulte
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Opposing counsel cooperative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial oversight |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Meadow Valley Contractors Inc.
|
Debtor creditor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
federal prosecutor
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack Scarola
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed defendant
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00005799.jpg
This document is a legal filing that refutes the defense's arguments against the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio. The author argues that the defense misinterprets legal precedent, specifically the Raymond case, and that Dr. Rocchio's testimony, based on qualitative social science, is valid under the standards established by cases like Daubert and United States v. Ferguson. The filing defends the expert's methodology against claims that it is unreliable, uncorroborated, and lacks statistical precision.
DOJ-OGR-00005798.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues for the admissibility of testimony by expert witness Dr. Rocchio, distinguishing her clinical, academic-based conclusions from those of an FBI agent in a precedent case (*Raymond*) whose testimony on child molester profiles was found unreliable. The filing emphasizes that Dr. Rocchio will testify on psychological underpinnings rather than offender profiling.
DOJ-OGR-00002830.jpg
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing dated March 24, 2021, details a court's analysis of a dispute between the defendant, Schulte, and the Government over the proper 'relevant community' for jury selection. The court sides with the Government, ruling that the appropriate jury pool is the White Plains master wheel, which draws from all counties in the Southern District, rather than just those that supply jurors to Manhattan where the trial is to be held. This decision is based on legal precedent and the statutory composition of the judicial district.
DOJ-OGR-00002771.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 22, 2021, is a portion of a court filing discussing the legal standards for a defendant's bail motion. It outlines the rebuttable presumption of detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), detailing the defendant's burden of production and the government's ultimate burden of persuasion. The document notes that the defendant has filed a third motion for bail, arguing for reconsideration based on new conditions and a purportedly weakened government case.
DOJ-OGR-00002764.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from March 18, 2021, addressing disputes over redactions in the Government's brief for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The Court evaluates the Defendant's objections and the Government's requests by balancing third-party privacy interests against the public's right to access, citing precedents like 'United States v. Amodeo'. The Court ultimately justifies some redactions based on privacy concerns while agreeing with the Defendant's objections to others.
DOJ-OGR-00020095.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, is the Government's argument against a defendant's release from the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The Government contends that the MDC has adequately addressed the defendant's complaints regarding diet and security searches, and that its COVID-19 precautions were effective, as the defendant was quarantined and tested negative after a potential exposure. The filing concludes that since the defendant has no underlying health conditions, the pandemic does not warrant her release.
DOJ-OGR-00020092.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is an extreme flight risk. The Government cites her foreign citizenship in a non-extraditing country, substantial international ties, financial resources, and a demonstrated sophistication in hiding assets. The filing also refutes the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement, stating she has ample access to her legal counsel and discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
This page from a legal document analyzes several precedent cases to argue for or against the detention of a defendant pending trial. It distinguishes the current case from others like *Khashoggi* and *Bodmer* where defendants were released, and draws parallels to cases like *Boustani*, *Patrick Ho*, and *Epstein* where defendants were detained. The analysis focuses on factors such as flight risk, financial resources, ties to foreign countries, and the existence of extradition treaties.
DOJ-OGR-00020088.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The central argument is that the assets securing the bond, held by the defendant's spouse, were originally funneled from the defendant herself, meaning the spouse would not lose his own money if she were to flee. This, combined with the defendant's considerable financial resources, foreign ties, and legal precedent against a 'two-tiered' bail system, supports the position that she should remain in detention as a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020086.jpg
This legal document discusses the defendant's financial status and its implications for her bail conditions. It highlights that the defendant possesses significantly more assets ($22 million, including a $2 million London townhouse and over $4 million in unrestrained funds) than initially reported, making her a substantial flight risk. The document also raises concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed bail bond, noting that some co-signers are UK residents who haven't offered cash or property, and the defendant's $7 million attorney retainer is presumed unspent.
DOJ-OGR-00020082.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition from France and the United Kingdom is unenforceable and does not mitigate her flight risk. It explains that UK law requires an independent judicial review of extradition and that the process is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to appeal, making it an ineffective guarantee. The document cites several court cases as precedent to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk and is a valid consideration for detaining a defendant pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020075.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued detention of the defendant, Maxwell. It asserts that even though some documentary evidence does not name her, it supports victims' testimonies about their interactions with both her and her co-conspirator, Epstein, making the Government's case strong. The document also dismisses the defense's bail arguments, citing the defendant's foreign ties, transfer of millions to her spouse, and ability to hide as factors that weigh heavily in favor of detention.
DOJ-OGR-00020072.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing against bail for a defendant, citing the high flight risk due to a potential 35-year sentence and the strong opposition from victims. It emphasizes the strength of the government's evidence, particularly the anticipated testimony of three victims regarding the defendant's role in grooming them for sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020069.jpg
This page from a legal document details a court's decision to detain a defendant before trial, finding that electronic monitoring would be insufficient and dismissing concerns about COVID-19 risks. The document then outlines the applicable legal standard under the Bail Reform Act, explaining the government's burden to prove the defendant is a flight risk and the factors a court must consider.
DOJ-OGR-00020068.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court filing (Document 102) from December 28, 2020, in the case US v. Maxwell. It details the Court's reasoning for denying bail, citing Ghislaine Maxwell as a 'substantial actual risk of flight.' The text highlights her 'significant financial resources,' her failure to provide a full financial accounting, and her 'demonstrated sophistication' in hiding both her assets and herself from the public and the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00020053.jpg
This legal document discusses the case against Ms. Maxwell and the government's investigation following Epstein's death. It argues that the case against Ms. Maxwell was an afterthought and lacks corroboration, supporting her desire to clear her name and be granted bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020042.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell was not a flight risk prior to her arrest. It asserts that she intentionally moved to New Hampshire to be within driving distance of New York prosecutors and that her defense counsel was in regular communication with the government for months. The filing aims to counter the government's portrayal of her as a fugitive who was hiding and changing locations.
DOJ-OGR-00017419.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony focuses on the timeline of aircraft Visoski flew for Mr. Epstein, establishing that Epstein sold a Hawker jet around 1994 and acquired a Boeing 727 around 2000. In the period between these events, Visoski primarily flew a Gulfstream for Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00017382.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Visoski by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on identifying exterior photos of the main house at Jeffrey Epstein's Zorro Ranch (Exhibits 323 and 706) and describing the interior layout of the residence, specifically noting it is a square house with a central open courtyard.
DOJ-OGR-00017374.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Visoski (likely a pilot). Visoski testifies about knowing Sarah Kellen since the late 1990s and mentions another woman named Kimberly. The prosecution introduces Government Exhibits 327 and 310, which Visoski identifies as photos showing Sarah Kellen, himself at the front of an aircraft, and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005666.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 387) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The filing outlines arguments to exclude evidence related to 'Accuser-3,' asserting it is inadmissible under evidence rules like 404(b) and 403. In the alternative, it requests the court to prevent the government and Accuser-3 from describing her as a 'Minor' or as having been 'Sexually Abused' by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005629.jpg
This document is a Table of Exhibits from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 29, 2021. It lists two exhibits related to the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa M. Rocchio: a notice dated April 23, 2021, and her Curriculum Vitae.
DOJ-OGR-00005624.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a letter from the United States Attorney's office regarding the admissibility of evidence in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It states that certain evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged, negating the need for an in limine motion, and notes that the letter itself is designated as "confidential" under a July 31, 2020 Protective Order.
DOJ-OGR-00005611.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 385) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The text outlines arguments related to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), asserting that the Government failed to provide proper notice regarding evidence and that Maxwell requires additional time to respond to 'scant notice.' The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00005611).
DOJ-OGR-00005604.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, and dated October 18, 2021, is a motion from Ms. Maxwell's counsel in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The filing argues that the government has failed to produce co-conspirator statements, which has prejudiced Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial and violated her constitutional rights. As a remedy, her counsel requests the preclusion of these statements from the trial.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity