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-00002703.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is part of a defense argument for Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the indictment is vague and lacks crucial information, citing redacted "flight records" and "diary entries" as examples of information that leads to a dead-end. The filing argues that the absence of specific dates for alleged events, such as when 'Accuser-3' provided massages to Epstein, and the failure to explain how Ms. Maxwell's statements constituted perjury, make it impossible for her to prepare an adequate defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002689.jpg
This legal document is a motion arguing that the government must demonstrate the admissibility of any evidence related to 'Accuser-3' under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The filing asserts that this evidence constitutes 'other acts' evidence, which is typically inadmissible to prove character, and therefore its relevance and purpose must be formally litigated before being introduced at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002681.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues for the removal of allegations concerning 'Accuser-3' from her indictment. The defense contends that these allegations are irrelevant to the charges of enticing travel for unlawful sexual activity, as there is no claim Accuser-3 ever traveled for such a purpose, and that the alleged activity with Epstein was not unlawful because Accuser-3 was over the age of consent in England. The filing asserts that the government's inclusion of these claims is a prejudicial attempt to demonstrate a propensity for wrongdoing, in violation of federal evidence rules.
DOJ-OGR-00033039.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding on July 26, 2017. An attorney, Mr. Tein, questions an unidentified witness about their knowledge of potential financial compensation from the government for a criminal case and whether they ever received a victim notification letter. The witness denies knowledge of these matters, and another attorney, Mr. Leopold, objects to the form of the questions.
DOJ-OGR-00014492.jpg
This document is a partial legal summation from August 10, 2022, discussing evidence presented or promised in a case, likely related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. It highlights discrepancies between promised evidence (like nude photographs and schoolgirl outfits) and what was actually seen, and notes that law enforcement witnesses failed to deliver on promises and case agents were not called to testify. The document also references FedEx records indicating Ghislaine Maxwell did not send anything to an underage girl.
DOJ-OGR-00014485.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation (closing argument) by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that the testimonies of accusers 'Carolyn' and 'Jane' are unreliable because their stories changed over time to implicate Maxwell after pressure from lawyers and the FBI. Specifically, it notes that Carolyn's 2008 lawsuit against Epstein and Sarah Kellen never mentioned Maxwell, and alleges that Jane was coached to identify Maxwell as the woman with the 'foreign accent' present during the abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00014446.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (summation by Ms. Moe) filed in August 2022. It details evidence corroborating the testimony of a witness named Carolyn, specifically linking her to Epstein and Maxwell through FedEx invoices from 2002 and phone messages left at the Palm Beach house in 2004. The prosecutor argues that Maxwell's name on the FedEx invoices proves her involvement in the operation.
DOJ-OGR-00014445.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the summation by Ms. Moe. The text details allegations of sexual abuse involving Epstein and Maxwell against minors named Jane, Annie, Virginia Roberts, and Carolyn, supported by evidence such as flight logs and FedEx records.
DOJ-OGR-00014433.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court summation by Ms. Moe, likely a prosecutor, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Moe argues that the defense's attempt to discredit a witness named Jane by presenting other women named Michelle and Ava is a deliberate and meaningless distraction. She emphasizes that Jane never identified the specific women brought to court (Michelle Healey and Eva Dubin) and points out that Epstein and Maxwell's contact book contained multiple individuals with those common first names, suggesting the defense's tactic was intentionally vague and misleading.
DOJ-OGR-00005285.jpg
This document is page 9 of a jury questionnaire for a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 22, 2021. It probes potential jurors on their personal beliefs that might affect their ability to render a verdict, their acceptance of the judge's authority on legal matters, and their understanding of the presumption of innocence and the government's burden of proof. The document aims to ensure jurors can impartially apply legal principles in a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005261.jpg
This document is a legal filing detailing a defense team's motions in limine to exclude specific evidence, testimony, and terminology (including references to Jeffrey Epstein and characterizing accusers as "victims") in a criminal case. It also outlines procedures for temporary sealing of confidential discovery materials and reserves the right to file additional motions.
DOJ-OGR-00005230.jpg
This legal filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense counsel, Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell's right to prepare her defense has been compromised. The document details how the Government refused to hand-deliver a hard drive of evidence to the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), instead using FedEx, and how the MDC then delayed giving the materials to Ms. Maxwell for several days. Counsel requests the Court's intervention due to the MDC's alleged inefficiency and mishandling of legal mail.
DOJ-OGR-00005227.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of Ms. Maxwell. The defense counsel argues against the government's proposed deadline for a Rule 412 motion, requesting more time to review over 8,000 pages of recently disclosed material and witness information. The defense asserts that a deadline before November 15 is unreasonable given the volume of new evidence and the defendant's custodial status.
DOJ-OGR-00005223.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated October 13, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan acknowledges receipt of the defendant's motion for a specific type of jury selection (voir dire) and orders the Government to file a response by Monday, October 18, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00002875.jpg
This legal document, dated March 29, 2021, is a filing from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It clarifies the role of the FBI New York Office in an investigation conducted by the FBI Florida Office, stating that the New York office provided only 'ancillary support' by interviewing four witnesses between 2007 and 2008. The document asserts that this assistance did not make the New York office part of the prosecution team and that such inter-office cooperation is common.
DOJ-OGR-00002776.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion or order analyzing a defendant's flight risk. The Court is not persuaded by the Defendant's proposals to renounce her UK citizenship or to have a retired federal judge oversee her finances, concluding that she would still be able to delay or resist extradition. The Court maintains that the Defendant remains a flight risk due to her substantial international ties and the incentive to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00033053.jpg
This document is page 65 of a deposition transcript dated July 26, 2017. An unnamed witness is questioned about deleting their MySpace page just a few days prior to the deposition, and after having already been subpoenaed. The witness denies deleting the page to avoid a government subpoena, claiming they were simply 'sick and tired' of the platform and the 'drama' associated with it.
DOJ-OGR-00020141.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a defendant's ties to the United States, likely in the context of a bail hearing. The court acknowledges letters of support from the defendant's friends, family, and spouse, which aim to prove her strong connections to the country. However, the court remains unconvinced that she is not a flight risk, highlighting a key contradiction: the defendant now emphasizes her spousal relationship as a significant tie, yet at the time of her arrest, she claimed to be getting divorced from him.
DOJ-OGR-00008784.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, is a specific instruction (No. 58) from a judge to a jury in a criminal case. The judge explicitly directs the jurors not to consider any potential punishment for the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, during their deliberations. The document clarifies that the jury's only role is to determine guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence presented by the Government, while the duty of sentencing belongs exclusively to the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00008779.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 53, from the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 19, 2021. It directs the jury on how to consider electronic communications seized by the Government as evidence. The instruction clarifies that the seizure was legal, personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant, and the jury must weigh this evidence like any other to determine the defendant's guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00008777.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, designated as Instruction No. 51, from a legal case filed on December 19, 2021. It advises the jury that the Government is not required to use any specific investigative techniques to prove its case against the defendant. The instruction emphasizes that the jury's role is solely to determine the defendant's guilt based on the evidence presented, not on the methods used to obtain that evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008775.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 49, from a legal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 19, 2021. It informs the jury that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, did not testify and that they are legally prohibited from drawing any negative conclusions or adverse inferences from her silence. The instruction emphasizes that the burden of proof lies entirely with the Government and never shifts to the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00008761.jpg
This document is a page from a set of jury instructions in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It specifically details "Instruction No. 39: Conscious Avoidance," explaining the legal concept of "willful blindness." The instruction guides the jury that if they find the defendant was aware of a high probability that a crime was occurring and deliberately avoided confirming the fact, this avoidance can be treated as the legal equivalent of knowledge.
DOJ-OGR-00008758.jpg
This document is a page of jury instructions from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. The instructions detail the legal standards for a jury to find a defendant guilty of conspiracy, specifically regarding 'overt acts'. It explicitly states that for Counts One and Three, the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, cannot be convicted based solely on the testimony of a witness named Kate, requiring additional evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008757.jpg
This legal document outlines several overt acts related to Count Five of an indictment against Maxwell. It details the alleged recruitment and exploitation of a minor named Carolyn by Maxwell and Epstein between 2001 and 2004, including arranging travel, paying for sex acts, and encouraging her to recruit other girls. The document also mentions a separate incident involving another victim, Annie, in 1996, and explains the legal standard for proving an overt act in a conspiracy case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity