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 GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Prosecution defense
5
1
View
person MDC
Information conduit
5
1
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Adversarial defendant vs prosecutor
5
1
View
person Juror 50
Juror prosecution
5
1
View
person MAXWELL
Adversarial prosecution defendant
5
1
View
person Michael Thomas
Legal representative
5
1
View
person prosecutors
Professional
5
1
View
person Epstein
Adversarial
5
1
View
person witnesses
Professional testimony
5
1
View
person MAXWELL
Adversarial litigant
5
1
View
organization Defense
Professional adversarial
5
1
View
person defendant/client
Adversarial
5
1
View
person defendant, our client
Adversarial
5
1
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Investigative
5
1
View
person Boies Schiller
Non agency
5
1
View
person Tracy Chapell
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Jeffrey Epstein
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Mr. Epstein
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Nicole Hesse
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Juror No. 50
Adversarial
5
1
View
person defendants
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Epstein
Professional
5
1
View
organization Boies Schiller
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Nicole Hesse
Professional
5
1
View
person Judge Freeman
Professional
5
1
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-00017730.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioner confronts Jane with a prior statement she allegedly made to the government about receiving phone calls from someone named Emmy in Florida when she was a teenager. Jane denies making the statement and claims the written record of it is incorrect, leading to objections from her counsel, Ms. Moe, and rulings from the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017725.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a court cross-examination transcript dated August 10, 2022, involving a witness identified as 'Jane.' The questioning focuses on Jane's associations with individuals named Emmy, Michelle, and Kelly, and her claims regarding their involvement in 'sexual contact' and 'group massages.' It also touches upon Jane's prior interactions with government agents and prosecutors, including her ability to identify individuals from pictures and statements made during an initial meeting in September.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017716.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on a trip she took to a large ranch in New Mexico, with the attorney asking if she recalls being accompanied by Mark Epstein (Jeffrey Epstein's brother) and Chef Adam Perry Ling. The witness repeatedly states that she does not recall these details or the existence of a massage room at the New Mexico property.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017715.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane', filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on confirming details of Jane's stays at an eight-story mansion on New York's Upper East Side, which belonged to Epstein and which she began visiting at age 14. The witness confirms these details but states she does not know if another individual, Ghislaine, lived at the mansion.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017701.jpg

This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies in her story, specifically regarding a trip she took to New York with Ghislaine and Epstein at age 14 to see 'The Lion King'. The questioner highlights a discrepancy between her current testimony and what she initially told the government in a meeting in September 2019, particularly concerning whether anything inappropriate occurred on that trip.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017699.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney questions Jane about incidents in New York involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and despite objections from another attorney, Jane confirms that she did tell the government about at least one such incident.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017696.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies between her current testimony and prior statements made to the government in 2019 regarding a trip to New York at age 14 where she allegedly met Epstein. Jane denies the accuracy of the statements being presented, and her counsel, Ms. Moe, objects to the line of questioning, with the court sustaining the objection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017691.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. They are discussing a complex legal issue regarding an amended rule and a Second Circuit decision on the admissibility of civil litigation settlements in a criminal case. The judge expresses doubt that the rule amendment overrules the binding Second Circuit precedent and asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to research the issue.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017675.jpg

This document is a legal transcript from a case. It involves questioning about an incident with Epstein and Ghislaine, and the witness's memory of events. There are objections and requests for clarification from the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017664.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the correct procedure for questioning a witness, Jane, who repeatedly claims she cannot remember her prior statements to the government. The judge advises the attorneys on how to phrase questions to avoid improperly introducing prior statements when the witness has no recollection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017662.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on establishing that a person named Epstein would control social situations by directing where Jane and other girls sat in a movie theater. The transcript also captures a procedural discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Menninger) and the judge regarding a prior statement the witness made to the government on February 27, 2020.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017659.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning attorney confirms Jane's prior statement to the government that Maxwell and Epstein visited her house before an instance of abuse. The transcript also explores Jane's past relationship with Ghislaine, whom she once viewed as a "big sister", and confirms details about her own family, including two older sisters.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017654.jpg

This document is a transcript from a legal case, likely a deposition or testimony. It discusses events involving Epstein, Palm Beach, and a meeting with the government in September 2019, including statements made by Ms. Moe.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017650.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning challenges the witness's testimony by highlighting inconsistencies between her current account and a prior statement she gave to the government on September 19, 2019, concerning an encounter with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein and a discussion about scholarships. The witness suggests that any discrepancies may be due to transcription errors by the FBI.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017636.jpg

This document is a partial transcript of a cross-examination from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger questions a witness named Jane about a letter of recommendation included in her application, specifically inquiring about its content, the qualifications of the unnamed recommender who was on the board of the Palm Beach School of the Arts, and whether Jane solicited the letter. The Court oversees the exchange, which also references government exhibits.

Legal document (court transcript/deposition)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017632.jpg

This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' (testifying under a pseudonym) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane regarding her applications to Interlochen, specifically asking about her knowledge of financial aid and scholarships, and clarifying her age (13 to 17) during the three summers she attended. The Judge interrupts at the end to clarify if a statement made by the attorney was a question.

Court transcript / trial testimony
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017628.jpg

This page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details a discussion between the judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. Ms. Moe updates the court on resolving prior disagreements, requests a sidebar regarding a witness issue, and flags anticipated Rule 408 objections regarding defense exhibits.

Court transcript page
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017627.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, about how to handle 18 binders of sealed exhibits for the jury and the witness stand. After agreeing on the procedure, the judge thanks the counsel for their work on anonymity issues and calls for a recess.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017615.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, is arguing a procedural point to the judge about the defense's ability to introduce its own evidence through a witness called by the government. He provides two examples: a real one involving FedEx records and a hypothetical one involving a witness named Larry Visoski who recently testified about pictures of Little St. James Island.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015630.jpg

This document is a photograph entered as Government Exhibit 303 in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. 20 Cr. 330). It depicts the interior cabin of a private aircraft, showing a lounge area with beige sofas, folded blankets, and a view into a rear cabin with red seating. The image bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00015630.

Photograph / government exhibit
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015621.jpg

This document is a legal exhibit, numbered 292, from a criminal case (S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)). It displays an image of an interior space featuring a spiral staircase and a chandelier. The document is identified by the ID DOJ-OGR-00015621.

Legal exhibit
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015615.jpg

This is a photograph of a desk entered as Government Exhibit 285-R in case S2 20 Cr. 330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The desk features personal items including a notepad printed with 'Ghislaine Maxwell', a landline telephone, a silver-framed photo of a couple, a wicker basket, and a model airplane with the tail number N908GM. One picture frame in the background has been redacted.

Photograph of physical evidence (government exhibit)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015150.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against unsealing the grand jury transcripts from the Maxwell case. It asserts that nearly all the information presented to the grand juries is already public record from Maxwell's trial, and the remaining non-public information is minimal and inconsequential. The document concludes that a member of the public familiar with the trial would learn nothing new from the unsealed materials, which do not identify new individuals, clients, or methods related to Epstein's or Maxwell's crimes.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015135.jpg

This legal document, page 3 of a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, summarizes the evidence from Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, which concluded on December 29, 2021, with her conviction on five counts. It details testimony from four victims (Jane, Kate, Annie, Carolyn) and other evidence establishing Maxwell's instrumental role in Jeffrey Epstein's decade-long scheme to sexually abuse underage girls. The document also references post-trial motions, appeals, and the separate dismissal of perjury charges against Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015112.jpg

This legal document is a filing on behalf of victims in the Epstein/Maxwell case, respectfully requesting the Court to implement specific protective measures before unsealing grand jury materials. The requests include requiring the government to confer with victims' counsel, judicial in-camera review of the materials, and pre-release review by victims' counsel to propose redactions. The filing argues these safeguards are essential to protect the survivors' safety, privacy, and dignity from further trauma, especially given recent events concerning Ms. Maxwell.

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