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-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).

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal memorandum / court filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript index / case filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript / legal filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

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