GOVERNMENT
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-18 | Court ruling | The Government's motion for remand (detention) was granted, and the Defense motion for pretrial r... | New York, New York | View |
| 2019-07-18 | N/A | Court filing rejecting defense bail package proposal. | Court | View |
| 2019-07-18 | N/A | Scheduled conference in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein | New York | View |
| 2019-07-16 | N/A | Filing of Government's supplemental detention submission and exhibits on ECF. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2019-07-15 | N/A | Court argument/hearing referenced in text regarding government arguments. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2019-07-15 | Court proceeding | A court transcript (Tr.) from this date is cited, where an argument was made that the defense cou... | Court | View |
| 2019-07-15 | N/A | Court appearance/arguments regarding bail. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2019-07-15 | N/A | Government request for exclusion of speedy trial time submitted to Judge Berman's chambers. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-07-15 | Court proceeding | A court transcript (Tr.) was created, from which a quote is taken regarding the defense's ability... | Court | View |
| 2019-07-11 | N/A | Government filed response to defendant's letter motion relating to sealing in U.S. v. Epstein. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-07-08 | N/A | Bail Hearing | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2019-07-08 | N/A | Detention Memo submitted to Magistrate Judge Pitman. | SDNY | View |
| 2019-07-08 | N/A | Expected bail argument, presentment, and arraignment | Court | View |
| 2019-07-08 | Hearing | A court hearing before 'this Court' (referring to the court of Judge Richard M. Berman). | Court | View |
| 2019-07-08 | Hearing | A court hearing before Magistrate Judge Pitman. | Court | View |
| 2019-07-08 | N/A | Indictment Unsealed | Court | View |
| 2019-07-06 | N/A | Approximate date of Indictment unsealing and arrest (referenced as 'less than a week ago'). | New York | View |
| 2019-07-02 | Legal proceeding | Epstein was charged by indictment. | N/A | View |
| 2019-07-01 | N/A | Execution of search warrants and seizure of nude photographs/electronic discs | Defendant's Manhattan resid... | View |
| 2019-04-16 | N/A | Document Filed | Court (implied by header) | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Legal ruling | Chief Judge McMahon granted the Government’s application and issued a memorandum and order. | Court | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Transfer of records | Following Judge McMahon's order, BSF turned over its records from the civil litigation to the Gov... | N/A | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Ex parte hearing | Judge McMahon held a second ex parte hearing where she questioned the Government about its contac... | Court | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Hearing | Chief Judge McMahon held a conference to inquire about the Government's request for materials and... | N/A | View |
| 2019-04-01 | N/A | Second appearance before [Redacted] | 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