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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into by Jeffrey Epstein. | Florida (implied by NPA con... | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) | Eleventh Circuit | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Date referenced by defense regarding when government allegedly knew about conduct. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Legal agreement | Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement ('NPA') was established. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Meeting | A meeting with the government that Ms. Villaflana allegedly attended, which the witness is questi... | Florida | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Investigation | Florida Investigation | Florida | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement | N/A | View |
| 2006-10-06 | N/A | Issuance of Grand Jury Subpoena | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Accuser-1 gave a statement to the government | Unknown | View |
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Government learned background checks were often prematurely ended. | USA | View |
| 2005-01-01 | N/A | Grand jury proceedings relating to Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2004-11-01 | Legal analysis | A judge is determining whether the offense continued after November 1, 2004, to decide which sent... | N/A | View |
| 2003-01-01 | Legislation | An amendment to § 3283 was enacted, extending the statute of limitations for certain offenses. | N/A | View |
| 2003-01-01 | N/A | Government cannot apply 2003 amendment to § 3283 that extended the statute of limitations. | N/A | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Vote of no-confidence in the Knesset | Knesset, Israel | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Period of alleged violations | The government chose to allege violations by Ms. Maxwell only within this narrow time period. | N/A | View |
| 1991-01-01 | N/A | Civil war in Algeria | Algeria | View |
| 0023-11-01 | Conference | Discussion about the limiting instruction, where the defense agreed with it. | N/A | View |
| 0023-11-01 | N/A | Final Pretrial Conference | Court | View |
| 0021-08-01 | N/A | Conference discussing issues related to Mr. Tartaglione's housing in the MCC. | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014781.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the supervisory authority of Kellen, an employee, in relation to Maxwell, Epstein, and an unnamed defendant. It details arguments about whether Kellen's actions, such as making calls and scheduling massage appointments, constituted supervisory authority, and mentions testimony from pilots regarding Kellen's reporting structure. The discussion also touches upon a five-point enhancement for sex offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00014775.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, capturing a legal argument about evidence. A defense attorney argues that a helicopter purchase and testimony from Larry Visoski about holding assets for Mr. Epstein are not proof of their client's continued involvement in a conspiracy. In response, prosecutor Ms. Moe contends that this financial evidence was specifically offered to prove the defendant remained a 'close associate' of Epstein for many years, contradicting the defense's claim that she had 'moved on'.
DOJ-OGR-00014751.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. In this excerpt, the judge confirms with counsels Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim that all submissions have been filed and received. The judge then specifically asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to confirm what has been done to notify crime victims under the Justice For All Act, to which Ms. Moe responds that six impacted individuals have been notified through their counsel about the sentencing and their right to be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00008662.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 32) from a federal court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the four specific elements that the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a defendant of conspiracy to violate federal law, as charged in Counts One, Three, and Five of the indictment. The elements include the existence of an agreement, the defendant's knowing participation, the commission of an overt act by a member, and that the act was in furtherance of the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00008654.jpg
This document is page 116 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains Jury Instruction No. 26 regarding the first element of Count Six: Sex Trafficking of an Individual Under the Age of 18. The text explicitly names 'Carolyn' as the specific individual the Government must prove Maxwell knowingly recruited or trafficked.
DOJ-OGR-00008653.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 25) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the four specific elements the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the Defendant on Count Six, Sex Trafficking of an Individual Under the Age of 18. The instruction specifies that this particular count pertains to a person named Carolyn and the alleged acts occurred between 2001 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00008651.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 23) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It specifies that for Counts Two (enticement) and Four (transportation across state lines), the prosecution does not need to prove that the intended sexual activity actually occurred. The crucial element for the jury to consider is whether the Defendant possessed the required criminal intent at the time of the alleged acts.
DOJ-OGR-00008650.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a federal criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the third element the government must prove for 'Count Four,' which is that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knew that the victim, 'Jane,' was under the age of seventeen at the time of the alleged crime.
DOJ-OGR-00008643.jpg
This document is a page from a set of jury instructions (Instruction No. 16) for a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It explains the second element of 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity,' stating that the Government must prove the individual traveled in interstate commerce. The document defines 'interstate commerce' as movement between one state and another.
DOJ-OGR-00008641.jpg
This document is page 103 of a court filing (Document 563) filed on December 18, 2021, containing Jury Instruction No. 14 for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the three legal elements required to prove the Defendant guilty of 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity,' specifically noting that this count relates solely to an individual named 'Jane' between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00008633.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically "Instruction No. 7," from a legal case filed on December 18, 2021. It explains the legal concepts of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. The instruction explicitly states that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, is presumed innocent, does not have to prove her innocence, and that the Government has the sole and constant burden to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all charges.
DOJ-OGR-00008618.jpg
This document is page 80 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, containing Jury Instruction No. 58 for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge instructs the jurors that they must not consider potential punishment when determining guilt, emphasizing that sentencing is the sole responsibility of the judge. The instruction clarifies the jury's role is strictly to weigh evidence regarding whether the Government has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00008613.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 53, from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 18, 2021. The instruction directs the jury on how to consider electronic communications seized by the Government as evidence. It explicitly states that the seizure and use of this evidence are legal, and that the jury must not allow their personal opinions about the seizure to affect their deliberations, but must instead determine the weight of the evidence in deciding the Defendant's guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00008609.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 49, from a legal case filed on December 18, 2021. It informs the jury that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, has a constitutional right not to testify and that her decision to exercise this right cannot be used against her. The instruction emphasizes that the burden of proof lies entirely with the Government and the jury must not draw any adverse inference from the defendant's silence.
DOJ-OGR-00008602.jpg
This document is page 64 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains 'Instruction No. 44: Credibility of Witnesses,' which guides the jury on how to evaluate witness testimony based on demeanor, consistency, honesty, and potential interest in the case's outcome. The text outlines the jurors' right to accept or reject testimony in whole or in part based on their assessment of truthfulness.
DOJ-OGR-00008595.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction, specifically Instruction No. 39, filed on December 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It defines the concept of "conscious avoidance" or "willful blindness," instructing the jury that they can consider a defendant's deliberate ignorance of a probable crime as the equivalent of actual knowledge. This instruction guides the jury in determining whether the defendant acted "knowingly," a key element the government must prove.
DOJ-OGR-00008593.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (No. 37) from a federal criminal case, filed on December 18, 2021. It details the 'fourth element' of a conspiracy charge, explaining that the government must prove an 'overt act' was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. The instruction clarifies to the jury that this overt act does not need to be illegal in itself and can be an otherwise innocent action.
DOJ-OGR-00008590.jpg
This document is a page from jury instructions (Instruction No. 36) in a federal criminal case, filed on December 18, 2021. It details the 'overt act' element required to prove a conspiracy charge, listing specific allegations from the indictment against conspirators Maxwell and Epstein. The alleged overt acts, occurring between 1994 and 2002, involve the sexual abuse and exploitation of underage victims identified as Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn across multiple locations including New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London.
DOJ-OGR-00008577.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction from a court case, filed on December 18, 2021, concerning Ms. Maxwell. It defines the fourth element of Count Six, 'Sex Trafficking of an Individual Under the Age of 18,' specifically addressing the requirement of affecting interstate commerce. The instruction clarifies for the jury that the Government does not need to prove Ms. Maxwell intended to affect interstate commerce, only that her actions did so, even minimally, and that proof of actual travel across state lines is not required.
DOJ-OGR-00008576.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a legal case filed on December 18, 2021, detailing the third element the prosecution must prove for a conviction on Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor. It specifies that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, must have known the victim, Carolyn, would be engaged in a commercial sex act, and clarifies that the victim's consent is not a defense if she was under 18.
DOJ-OGR-00008574.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (No. 26) from a federal criminal case, filed on December 18, 2021. It specifies the first element the government must prove for Count Six, Sex Trafficking of a Minor, which is that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained a person named Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00008570.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 22) from a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It specifies the third element the Government must prove for Count Four of an indictment: that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knew the victim, referred to as 'Jane', was under seventeen years old at the time of the alleged illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00008562.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the first element the government must prove against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity. The instruction defines key legal terms for the jury, including "interstate commerce" and the standard for acting "knowingly," explaining that intent can be inferred from conduct and circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00008561.jpg
This legal document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 14) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It details the three elements the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the defendant on 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity'. The instruction specifies that this charge pertains exclusively to actions against an individual named 'Jane' between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00008553.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing from December 18, 2021, containing 'Instruction No. 7' for a jury in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. The instruction explains the legal principles of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. It explicitly states that Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, has pleaded not guilty, and that the Government bears the entire burden of proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a burden which never shifts to the defendant.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity