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 Legal ruling Judge Nathan found three times that the Government established Maxwell is a risk of flight and th... district court View
N/A Jury instruction Instruction No. 23 clarifies the legal standard for Counts Two and Four, stating that the failure... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding An oral argument was held where the government was asked about the routine nature of flashlight c... Court View
N/A Legal proceeding Argument that Juror No. 50's implied and inferable bias requires a new trial. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The Government's summation at trial, where it argued the Defendant intended for victims to be sex... Court View
N/A Legal proceeding The Government's response regarding a defendant's access to a laptop at an MDC facility. Southern District of New York View
N/A Legal proceeding The document discusses preserving Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate an issue concerning the governm... Court View
N/A Trip The Government was unwilling to hand-deliver a copy of their disclosures to MDC on the due date. MDC View
N/A Disclosure The Government made its witness and exhibit lists available to defense counsel last night after t... N/A View
N/A Indictment The S2 Indictment charged the defendant with Mann Act offenses. N/A View
N/A Trial The Court charged the jury that the Government had to prove the defendant's intent to violate a N... N/A View
N/A Investigation An investigation into the conduct of Juror No. 50. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Discussion of the legal standards and burdens for pre-trial detention in the case against Ms. Max... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding / trial Discussion of the jury selection process for Schulte's trial, specifically defining the 'relevant... Manhattan View
N/A N/A Destruction or return of materials to the Government following the conclusion of the case. N/A View
N/A Trial The document discusses the scope of a trial, arguing that introducing certain evidence about gove... N/A View
N/A Trial A trial where the Government presented evidence about a pattern of abuse involving the Defendant ... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding A potential criminal trial for Ms. Maxwell where the joinder of Perjury Counts is being debated. N/A View
N/A Legal motion Thomas's motion for the production of an Inspector General report is being argued against and rec... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding An on-going grand jury investigation by the government is mentioned. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The Court denies the Defendant's renewed motion regarding pre-indictment delay. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding A trial occurred where testimony supplied legitimate explanations for the Government's delay in i... N/A View
N/A Press conference A press conference was held following Ms. Maxwell's indictment. N/A View
N/A Press conference A press conference was held following Mr. Epstein's indictment. N/A View
N/A Press conference A press conference was convened at the doorstep of Mr. Epstein's former New York mansion. Mr. Epstein's former New Yo... View

DOJ-OGR-00020363.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the government's case against a defendant named Maxwell, stating it is supported by victim testimony and other evidence like flight records. It details that Judge Nathan has denied Maxwell's three bail applications, culminating in a bail hearing on July 14, 2020. Judge Nathan's decision to detain Maxwell was based on the strength of the government's evidence and Maxwell's risk of flight.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020357.jpg

This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, details the allegedly abusive and overly restrictive detention conditions of Ms. Maxwell at the MDC. It claims she is subjected to constant, invasive surveillance, has been physically abused by guards, had property damaged, and had private information leaked to the press. The filing argues that these conditions are unwarranted and that her monitored communications with family demonstrate strong ties to the U.S., contradicting claims that she is a flight risk.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020340.jpg

This document is page 2 of a legal filing from May 17, 2021, in case 21-58. It contains an appendix listing recent court orders and filings related to Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions, including a letter from her, a response from the government, and her subsequent reply. The document was respectfully submitted by her legal counsel, Leah S. Saffian and David Oscar Markus of MARKUS/MOSS PLLC.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017607.jpg

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records a conversation between the judge, a government attorney (Ms. Moe), and another attorney (Ms. Sternheim) concerning the testimony of an upcoming witness. The judge acknowledges their points and adjourns the court until 8:45 a.m. on December 1, 2021.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017601.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger). The discussion centers on the procedure for redacting a witness's identifying information from the testimony, which the judge had previously sealed. They agree on a timeline for the government to propose redactions and for the attorneys to confer and file letters with the court by 10 PM that evening if any disagreements arise.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017599.jpg

This document is a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Comey, Ms. Menninger, Ms. Moe). The main topics are setting a 9:00 p.m. deadline for both the government and defense to submit letters regarding a dispute over Rule 16, and initiating a discussion on how to handle witness identifying information.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017585.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. Jane confirms that in early 2020, she sued both Ghislaine Maxwell and the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. She also states she participated in a victim compensation fund for Jeffrey Epstein's victims, was awarded $5 million, but did not receive the full amount.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017575.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym "Jane". Jane describes being summoned by a man named Jeffrey from a pool area to his bedroom or massage room. During the testimony, an exhibit containing two pictures of Jane (Government Exhibit 245) is admitted into evidence under seal, consistent with the court's ruling allowing her to use a pseudonym.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017560.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness using the pseudonym 'Jane' by prosecutor Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on Jane identifying photographs of herself (Government Exhibits 107 and 108) and confirming she was 15 and 17 years old, respectively, when they were taken.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017524.jpg

This page is a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), featuring the direct examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The witness identifies a photograph of herself (Government Exhibit 106) taken when she was 13 years old, which is admitted under seal to protect her anonymity. The questioning establishes her household situation in 1993, noting she lived with her mother and two brothers.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017521.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym "Jane". The witness identifies Government Exhibit 12 as her birth certificate. Following a request from attorney Ms. Moe and with no objection from attorney Ms. Menninger, the judge permits the jury to view the sealed exhibit.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017519.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures the end of a witness's, Mr. Visoski's, testimony, where he is excused by the judge. Following his departure, the counsel for the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the government (Ms. Comey) have a brief procedural exchange with the judge before the government is invited to call its next witness.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017451.jpg

This document is a transcript from a legal cross-examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning establishes that Jeffrey Epstein had a home and office in Columbus, Ohio, near Les Wexner's home. The witness confirms being questioned by the government about a woman referred to by the pseudonym 'Jane', whom the witness recalls seeing on Epstein's plane on one occasion in the 1990s.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014542.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for a defense team. Menninger argues that the witness, Juan Alessi, is not credible by pointing out that he reported directly to Epstein, not Ghislaine, and by citing an email between Ghislaine and Sally Markham where Alessi's work was called 'truly awful'. She further undermines his credibility by discussing his inconsistent testimony regarding a household manual and a black address book.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014525.jpg

Defense attorney Ms. Menninger delivers a closing argument attacking the credibility of a witness named Kate. Menninger highlights that Kate received $3.25 million from the victims' fund, sought a U visa claiming to be 'exceptional,' and admitted to emailing Epstein for decades while having no proof of contact with Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues Kate's memory is flawed due to substance abuse and suggestiveness, specifically challenging her claim of meeting Maxwell at 44 Kinnerton Street in 1994 to qualify for victim compensation.

Court transcript (defense summation/closing argument)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014509.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. Menninger argues against the government's claim that a woman named Michelle is a random person, citing testimony from witnesses Jane and Michelle herself to establish that she is a specific individual who was friends with another person named Emmy. The summation aims to prove that Jane is not fabricating connections but identifying real people she encountered in 'Epstein's world'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014508.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, who is analyzing the testimony of a witness named Jane. Menninger questions Jane's credibility regarding allegations of 'sexual massages' with women named Sophie and Eva, suggesting Jane may have invented the names. However, Menninger then introduces a flight log from November 1996 showing Jane, Sophie, and Eva (identified as Dr. Eva Dubin) on a flight together, using this evidence to re-contextualize their relationship and challenge Jane's narrative.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014504.jpg

This document is a transcript page from a defense summation by Ms. Menninger in a criminal trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney argues that a witness's testimony is unreliable due to significant memory lapses and inconsistencies, specifically highlighting contradictory accounts given to the FBI versus in court regarding the location and circumstances of the first instance of sexual abuse involving Epstein.

Court transcript (summation)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014493.jpg

This document is a page from a defense attorney's (Ms. Menninger) summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues that the government failed to prove its case, specifically challenging the narrative that Maxwell targeted and recruited young women. The defense points to testimony indicating that other individuals, such as Virginia Roberts and Maria Farmer, were responsible for introducing victims like Carolyn and Annie Farmer to Jeffrey Epstein, not Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011719.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between Ms. Sternheim and the Judge. Ms. Sternheim argues that lawyers who attended proffer sessions with the government can be considered witnesses, but the Judge denies this, stating that such an action would have required a specific briefing that was never submitted. The core issue is the admissibility of testimony from these lawyers during the trial.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011717.jpg

This document is page 52 of a court transcript (Document 741, filed Aug 10, 2022) featuring the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Sternheim argues there is a lack of documentation or eyewitnesses to corroborate the government's charges. She characterizes Jeffrey Epstein as a wealthy, mysterious 'manipulator' comparable to James Bond, who lived a compartmentalized life with specific eccentricities, and alleges that accusers are motivated by financial gain ('shaking the money tree').

Court transcript (opening statement)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011692.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the beginning of an opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz for the government. Ms. Pomerantz begins to narrate the story of a girl named Jane, who, at age 14 in 1994, met an older man and woman at a summer camp. This meeting is framed as the start of a long-term, nightmarish relationship for Jane with the couple, who were more than double her age.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011689.jpg

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a judge provides preliminary instructions to the jury, emphasizing their duty not to discuss the case with anyone and explaining that all parties and counsel are forbidden from interacting with them. The judge also details the courtroom's specific COVID-19 safety protocols, which require witnesses and lawyers to use a Plexiglas enclosure with a HEPA filter when speaking.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011681.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript, likely a judge's instructions to a jury. It outlines the sequence of a criminal trial, clarifying that only testimony from witnesses and exhibits constitute evidence, not the lawyers' opening or closing statements. The text emphasizes the defendant's presumption of innocence, stating she is not required to offer proof, and concludes by noting that jury deliberations are secret.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011674.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. Government counsel, Ms. Moe, raises a concern about the defense's plan to show documents to a witness on a screen that the government cannot see, making it difficult to follow. The judge (The Court) proposes a solution where the defense can use the screen as long as they verbally describe their actions, and offers the same allowance for the government to use paper documents if projection is not possible.

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