GOVERNMENT
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
29 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
62 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
55 | |
|
person
Recipient
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Adversarial |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
THOMAS
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
24 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Thomas
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Minor Victims
|
Protective |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein's counsel
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
7
|
3 |
| 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-00015110.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330, argues against the unsealing of materials related to the convicted individual, Maxwell. It outlines the victims' concerns, citing Maxwell's recent transfer to a lower-security prison, her access to a public platform through individuals like Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the government's failure to consult victims, and a growing fear of clemency. The filing asserts that these developments are causing re-traumatization for the survivors and disregard their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
DOJ-OGR-00015107.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 6, 2025, argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to Epstein and Maxwell's criminal scheme, advocating for the redaction of victims' names while opposing similar protection for third-party enablers. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum and several civil cases, asserting that transparency and accountability necessitate the release of information concerning individuals involved in sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00015105.jpg
This legal document argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case, asserting that the extraordinary nature of their crimes and the victims' need for transparency outweigh standard secrecy protocols. It highlights that unsealing is necessary to expose the full scope of the abuse and the network of enablers without forcing victims to expose themselves to retaliation. The filing further contends that living witnesses, specifically the victims, actively support this disclosure rather than opposing it.
DOJ-OGR-00015088.jpg
This legal document discusses the government's attempt to unseal grand jury transcripts, citing historical interest. The document argues that the release would affect Maxwell's privacy interests and that the government's motion should be denied due to ongoing litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00015068.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses whether to release grand jury materials related to Epstein and Maxwell. It argues that the current status of the principals (Epstein deceased, Maxwell incarcerated) and their families should be considered, and notes that much of the information is already public through Maxwell's trial and civil litigation initiated by victims.
DOJ-OGR-00015066.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the disclosure of grand jury materials. It outlines legal factors for consideration, noting that Defendant Epstein is deceased and cannot respond, while Defendant Maxwell intends to. The document emphasizes the strong public interest in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as in the related investigations by the Department of Justice and FBI, as a justification for the disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00015065.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 29, 2025, is part of a discussion regarding the disclosure of grand jury materials under the 'In re Craig' factors. The Government, as the party seeking disclosure, argues that its request is supported by significant public interest and formal requests from Congress. Specifically, it cites letters from the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and a Task Force demanding information and the release of files related to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, whose case is linked with Ghislaine Maxwell's.
DOJ-OGR-00015034.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the testimony of witness Lisa Rocchio, detailing page numbers for direct examination by Ms. Pomerantz and cross-examination by Mr. Pagliuca. It also lists Government Exhibits 1-5 and Defendant Exhibits A and B introduced during this testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00015027.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the witness's testimony regarding childhood abuse reporting rates, specifically challenging their conclusions by analyzing the statistics from the "Alaggia study, 2010". The witness defends their position by interpreting the study's data to show that a majority (58%) of victims did not disclose abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00015022.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, concerning statistical data on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) disclosure rates, specifically discussing a study where 50% of participants did not disclose abuse until after age 19. The transcript also captures administrative exchanges regarding exhibit binders and microphone usage between the attorneys (Pomerantz, Rohrbach, Pagliuca) and the Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00015011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning centers on scientific articles Rocchio provided to the government, discussing their relevance to the Daubert standard, the recency of an article labeled Exhibit 3, and a specific 'Winters article' from 2020. The witness clarifies the scope of their testimony and corrects the questioner on the recency of the evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00014985.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination filed on January 15, 2025. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions a witness named Rocchio about a letter from the government dated April 23, 2021. The questioning establishes and confirms various categories of vulnerable individuals who are often targeted for sexual abuse, including the economically disadvantaged, those without family, and individuals with cognitive or emotional disabilities.
DOJ-OGR-00014975.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions a witness, Rocchio, about a contract with the government. Rocchio confirms the contract is for up to $45,000 at a rate of $450 per hour, but clarifies that they have not yet been paid because an invoice has not been submitted.
DOJ-OGR-00014973.jpg
Transcript page from the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). The witness confirms possession of his engagement agreement and time logs, prompting defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca to request immediate production of the file. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz responds that the government has already fulfilled its Jencks Act obligations by producing notes from meetings and calls with the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00014971.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. It captures the beginning of a cross-examination where counsel Mr. Pagliuca questions a witness, Dr. Rocchio, about the frequency of his meetings with the government. Dr. Rocchio acknowledges that he may have had around 14 contacts with the government in the past year, clarifying that this number would include telephone calls for scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00014934.jpg
This page is a transcript from the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The government moves to admit 'Government Exhibit 5,' an article written by Park Dietz, which is accepted without objection. Dr. Rocchio explains that he provided this article to the government to clarify the concepts of 'grooming' and 'seduction' as established patterns in sexual abuse dynamics, noting specifically how older literature often used terminology that victim-blamed.
DOJ-OGR-00014920.jpg
This document is page 44 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct testimony of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, discussing methods of substantiating abuse cases, including legal convictions and medical evidence (specifically gonorrhea in children). During the testimony, the government introduces 'Government Exhibit 2,' an article regarding 'coercive control' authored by Jacquelynn Duron, Laura Johnson, Gretchen Hoge, and Judy Postmus, which is admitted into evidence without objection from the defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca.
DOJ-OGR-00014896.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on 01/15/25. It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the witness's academic credentials at Brown University and their expertise in traumatic stress and childhood trauma. During the testimony, Government Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence without objection from the defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca.
DOJ-OGR-00014881.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. The court discusses upcoming trial dates with counsel, proposing a final pretrial conference for November 23rd and discussing the start of voir dire on November 16th. Counsel Ms. Pomerantz (for the government) and Ms. Sternheim agree to the proposals, with Ms. Sternheim asking for a specific start time for the voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00014871.jpg
This page from a legal document, likely a court opinion, discusses and rejects a defendant's claim of a 'constructive amendment' to their indictment. The court finds that the evidence presented by the Government, including a witness named Jane's testimony, and the jury instructions from the District Court, stayed within the 'core of criminality' of the charged offense. The court also affirms the District Court's handling of an ambiguous jury note, concluding it did not lead to an improper conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing an appeal by Maxwell, who argues that Counts Three and Four of her indictment are untimely. She contends the offenses do not fall under the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283 and that a 2003 amendment to the statute cannot be retroactively applied. The court disagrees on both points, affirming the District Court's decision to deny her motion to dismiss and citing precedent from 'Weingarten v. United States'.
DOJ-OGR-00014863.jpg
This legal document argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts, a principle established since 1789. It contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell, citing legal precedent (Annabi) and statutes (28 U.S.C. § 547 and § 515) to support its position on prosecutorial jurisdiction.
DOJ-OGR-00014855.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion affirming the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell. The background section details Maxwell's role in coordinating and facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of young women and underage girls from 1994 until about 2004. It also mentions Epstein's September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00014785.jpg
This legal document excerpt discusses the evidence regarding whether Carolyn was sex trafficked after November 1, 2004, and before she turned 18 in early 2005. It details Carolyn's testimony about her contacts with Epstein, including visits to his house and phone calls in 2004, and his alleged comments about her age and friends, all within the context of a conspiracy to traffic her.
DOJ-OGR-00014784.jpg
This legal document is a transcript from a court proceeding, filed on August 22, 2022, discussing the sentencing of a defendant for a conspiracy of sexual abuse. The central issue is determining whether the 2003 or the harsher 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, which hinges on whether the crime continued past November 1, 2004. The government's argument relies on the testimony of a victim named Carolyn, whom the judge and jury found to be a credible witness.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity