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 | 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 |
065.pdf
This document is a Nolle Prosequi filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the case against Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, the correctional officers on duty when Jeffrey Epstein died. The filing indicates that both defendants successfully completed the terms of their deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) entered into on May 20, 2021, including community service and good behavior. Consequently, the Government recommended, and Judge Analisa Torres ordered on January 3, 2022, that the charges against them be dismissed.
032.pdf
Court order from the Southern District of New York in the case of USA v. Tova Noel and Michael Thomas. Judge Analisa Torres orders a motion filed by defendant Michael Thomas stricken from the docket because it contained 'Protected Material' in violation of a previous protective order. The defendant is directed to refile the motion in compliance with the order.
065.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of New York in the case of United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein (19 CR. 490). Judge Richard M. Berman orders that government submissions related to a July 22, 2025 order be delivered directly to chambers (500 Pearl Street) in a sealed envelope marked for 'Grady MacPhee' and emailed to a specific court email address. The document is dated July 25, 2025.
2022.07.29%20Hearing%20-%20Record%20Of%20Proceeding.pdf
This document is a Record of Proceedings from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands dated July 29, 2022, regarding a civil debt case (ST-2020-CV-00155) between plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell and the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. The hearing was a status conference presided over by Judge Harold W.L. Willocks, where parties were directed to meet and confer regarding oral arguments for a Motion to Dismiss and a Government motion to intervene. The document lists attorneys present for both sides and notes a related case, ST-2020-CV-00014.
2020.09.22%20Exhibit%20M.pdf
This document is a legal letter filed on September 22, 2020, from the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel to Magistrate Judge Hermon-Percell. The letter responds to accusations by the Virgin Islands Attorney General that the Estate is concealing financial information or 'structuring' transactions to avoid scrutiny. The Estate argues that the Attorney General has already received full transparency via subpoenas to FirstBank and requests the Court order the release of liens on the Estate's accounts to prevent irreparable harm.
EFTA00039019.pdf
An April 2023 email chain between Daniel Ruzumna (attorney for the Epstein Estate) and an FBI Special Agent regarding the discovery of potential Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). During a legal review of approximately 1,100 videos from Epstein's files, co-counsel discovered a video shared with Epstein by a convicted sex offender that potentially depicted minors. The Estate halted the review and reported the finding to the FBI for guidance.
EFTA00039017.pdf
This document contains an email chain from April 19, 2023, between Daniel Ruzumna (attorney for the Epstein Estate) and an FBI Special Agent regarding the discovery of potential Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). Attorneys reviewing approximately 1,100 videos from Epstein's files for civil litigation discovered a video depicting topless women, reportedly shared with Epstein by a convicted sex offender. The attorneys halted their review and contacted the FBI for guidance on how to proceed.
EFTA00039011.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 19, 2023, between Daniel Ruzumna (attorney for the Epstein Estate) and an FBI Special Agent from the Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking division. Ruzumna reports that during a court-ordered review of approximately 1,100 videos from Epstein's files, co-counsel discovered a video potentially containing child pornography (CSAM) depicting topless women, which had been shared with Epstein by a convicted sex offender. The emails coordinate a phone call between the attorneys and the FBI to discuss the discovery and next steps.
EFTA00039004.pdf
This document is a chain of emails from April 2023 between lawyers representing the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (Patterson Belknap and Hughes Hubbard) and the FBI Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking unit. The lawyers report finding a video potentially containing Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) among 1,100 videos extracted from Epstein's files during a document review. They arrange a meeting at the Hughes Hubbard offices in New York to discuss the finding and hand over information to the FBI.
EFTA00039001.pdf
This document is an email from April 2023 sent by Daniel Ruzumna, an attorney for the Epstein Estate, to a federal agent. Ruzumna reports that during a court-ordered review of approximately 1,100 videos from Epstein's files, co-counsel discovered a video potentially containing child pornography, which had been sent to Epstein by a convicted sex offender. The review was immediately halted, and the Estate sought guidance from federal authorities.
EFTA00038997.pdf
This document is a chain of emails from April and May 2023 between legal counsel for the Jeffrey Epstein Estate (Hughes Hubbard & Reed and Patterson Belknap) and the FBI's Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking unit. The lawyers report that during a court-ordered review of approximately 1,100 videos from Epstein's files, they discovered material potentially constituting Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). They halted their review, contacted the FBI to hand over the materials, and arranged meetings to facilitate this process.
EFTA00037094.pdf
An email thread from January 2020 between Daily Telegraph journalist Harriet Alexander and a source (possibly named Sarah, based on sidebar) regarding a story about Scotland Yard's failure to investigate a trafficking case. The source initially provided information off the record, including an audio recording, but later insisted on going on the record, stating the public needs to know the truth about trafficking outside the UK. The source also expresses strong appreciation for the support of an individual named Peter.
EFTA00031115.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 24, 2021, between unidentified legal professionals (likely DOJ prosecutors) regarding legal strategy. They are discussing a request for briefing materials to counter defense counsel's attempt to call numerous agents to testify in an effort to 'impeach the investigation.' One participant notes they are dealing with this same issue in the 'Maxwell' case (Ghislaine Maxwell) and shares a ruling from Judge Nathan (AJN) and relevant motions in limine (MIL).
EFTA00030823.pdf
This document is an email header dated July 8, 2019, with the subject line 'Gov't reply to Epstein bail motion due'. The sender and recipient fields are heavily redacted. It appears to be a notification regarding legal proceedings related to Jeffrey Epstein's bail.
EFTA00030516.pdf
An email exchange dated July 31, 2019, regarding the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (19 Cr. 490). An Assistant US Attorney informs defense counsel (Martin Weinberg) that the Government's first discovery production has been loaded onto a hard drive and is ready for pickup at the SDNY office in an envelope marked for Michael Miller.
EFTA00029465.pdf
An email dated February 5, 2019, from the Government to the Chambers of Judge Netburn regarding the case 'Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al.' The email submits an attached application and proposed order, respectfully requesting that these documents be filed under seal.
EFTA00029464.pdf
This document is an email dated February 5, 2019, sent by a Government representative to the Chambers of Judge Sweet regarding the case 'v. Maxwell, et al., 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)'. The email transmits an attachment related to an unsealing application and order, which the Government requests be filed under seal. The sender and recipient email addresses are redacted.
EFTA00029294.pdf
This document is an email thread from October 2021 involving Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, and government representatives (including Christian Everdell). Sternheim complains that legal materials (a hard drive and books) sent by the government via FedEx were delivered to the MDC on October 12, 2021, but had not been given to Maxwell as of October 14. The document includes screenshots of FedEx tracking information (Tracking #8166 1429 9130 and #8166 1429 9141) confirming delivery to Brooklyn, NY.
EFTA00028570.pdf
This document is a heavily redacted email dated May 21, 2021. It involves the transmission of a legal document titled 'Government_Opposition_to_Defense_Supplemental_Pretrial_Motions_v5_(MC).docx', indicating it is internal correspondence likely regarding the preparation of court filings, possibly for the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the date and context of such document releases.
EFTA00025238.pdf
This document is an email dated December 31, 2019, from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) to Montell Figgins regarding 'U.S. v. Thomas' (related to the guards on duty during Epstein's death). The email confirms the transmission of a hard drive containing discovery materials and notes the attachment of a specific document marked 'attorney's eyes only' (AEO).
EFTA00023365.pdf
An email from the Southern District of New York (Government) to Judge Nathan's chambers regarding the case US v. Maxwell. The email submits proposed redactions related to 'Witness-3' (also referred to as Accuser-3 in attachments) pursuant to previous court orders and motions.
EFTA00023049.pdf
This document is a 'List of Particulars' (Exhibit A), likely filed by the defense for Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains 29 specific requests demanding the government provide precise dates, locations, and details regarding allegations of sexual abuse, grooming, and interstate travel involving three minor victims between 1994 and 1997. It also requests specifics regarding perjury allegations related to depositions in 2016.
EFTA00021769.pdf
An email chain from July 2020 involving defense attorneys (Christian Everdell, Mark Cohen, et al.) discussing a 'Protective Order' for discovery, likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (implied by 'GM' in filenames). Everdell sends a revised draft to the Government following a call on July 20th. The top emailer (name redacted) forwards this message expressing confusion, noting they cannot see the difference between the attached documents or find the redline.
EFTA00021424.pdf
This document is an email dated July 15, 2019, from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York to the chambers of Judge Berman. It serves to transmit a legal filing requesting the exclusion of speedy trial time for the case U.S. v. Epstein (19 Cr. 490) for the period between July 15 and July 18, 2019, noting that defense counsel consents to the request.
EFTA00019904.pdf
This email thread from December 2019 is between a government official (Alex) and legal counsel for the Jeffrey Epstein estate (Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP). They discuss the logistics of providing search warrant returns/inventories from the 'now-defunct criminal case' to the estate trustees, specifically regarding properties in New York and the island. The emails also coordinate a future meeting to discuss resolving the government's potential forfeiture claims against the estate.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity