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 dispute The defense is arguing that the government must produce unredacted reports containing Brady mater... Court View
N/A Legal agreement The signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to the Epstein case. N/A View
N/A Legal hearing A detention hearing held by the district court where the government argued Ms. Maxwell was a flig... district court View
N/A Trial testimony Anticipated testimony of Witness-3 regarding interactions with the Defendant and Mr. Epstein. Courtroom View
N/A Court ruling A judge makes several rulings on objections from the government and defense regarding the admissi... Courtroom View
N/A Trial The document discusses the government's burden of proof at Ms. Maxwell's upcoming trial. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The criminal trial of Ms. Maxwell, where she is the defendant. N/A View
N/A Legal action The government's decision to intervene in the case Doe v. Indyke. S.D.N.Y. View
N/A Legal action The government's decision to remain on the sidelines of the case Giuffre v. Maxwell. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding A criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell where the government insists on the secrecy of discovery ma... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Ms. Maxwell's prosecution, which she argues was barred by a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). District Court View
N/A Legal challenge Schulte's fair cross-section challenge to the jury-selection process, alleging systematic exclusi... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The Government sought an Indictment in White Plains. White Plains View
N/A Hearing A court hearing where Juror 50 testified about his inaccurate answers on a questionnaire. Court View
N/A Legal proceeding Oral argument during which the government was asked about the routine nature of shining lights in... Court View
N/A Investigation The Government continued its investigation, which included interviewing two victims. N/A View
N/A N/A Post-verdict hearing regarding Juror 50 District Court View
N/A Investigation The Government opened a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-conspir... N/A View
N/A Legal action Grand jury subpoenas were issued to an entity referred to as 'Recipient'. N/A View
N/A Legal hearing The original bail hearing where the Government argued the defendant has considerable financial re... Court View
N/A Trial A legal trial where evidence was presented, a summation was given by the Government, and jury ins... District Court View
N/A Legal proceeding A Grand Jury Proceeding, the disclosure of materials from which is being debated based on several... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The Government began to produce discovery shortly after the protective order was entered. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding The Government began to produce discovery materials to the Defendant shortly after the protective... N/A View
N/A Court proceeding The initial stage of the case, opening statements, is scheduled to begin after lunch. courtroom 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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court document (jury instructions)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court filing / jury instructions
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court document - jury instructions
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court filing / jury instructions
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

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