FBI
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CIA
|
Intelligence sharing |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Trent Martin
|
Law enforcement subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Flatley
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
NSA
|
Cooperative data sharing |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Operational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Redacted Source
|
Informant service provider |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Witness
|
Person of interest interviewee |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Scott
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Official |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert Maheu
|
Informant operative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
U.S.
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Wild
|
Investigative law enforcement victim witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
paul krassner
|
Surveillance target |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The victims
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
NSA
|
Jurisdictional investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
James A. Baker
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie
|
Investigator witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
[REDACTED]
|
Professional collaboration |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
NSA
|
Inter agency communication |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
STEPHEN FLATLEY
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Pro-PRC organizations
|
Surveillance adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Requester agency |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | OPR working with FBI Palm Beach Office, including case agents and Victim Witness Specialist, to o... | Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI search of Automated Case Support system and documentation of victim notification system. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI Meeting | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Notification received by OPR from FBI and USAO regarding federal investigation and Epstein's plea. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI investigation into Epstein's international sex trafficking organization was quashed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Federal investigation began, contemporaneous with news reports of Epstein's arrest. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Victims provided OPR with information regarding their contacts with the FBI and USAO. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rothstein's firm was raided. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI produced a criminal complaint related to Alfredo Rodriguez. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell ('green lighting ab arrest'). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Launch of counterintelligence investigation into Trump campaign | USA | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel review of nude images | FBI | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI interview of a victim pursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual exploitation o... | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Epstein investigation | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transfer of evidence | New York Office (NYO) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal Investigation / Agency Interviews | MCC New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search of Epstein's island | Little St. James | View |
| N/A | N/A | Seizure of images from Jeffrey Epstein's residences pursuant to search warrants. | New York and Virgin Islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Planned Arrest upon return to US | Unspecified Airport | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closure of federal investigations by FBI and U.S. Attorney | Federal jurisdiction | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI Raid / Evidence Collection | Epstein Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Identification of new victims | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government interviews with accusers | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Opening of the case/Investigation | New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Referral of case to FBI | Palm Beach | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017666.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Menninger, and the judge. The discussion centers on the proper procedure for impeaching a witness who claims not to recall a prior statement made to the FBI. The judge explains that a claim of not recalling is not an inconsistent statement and details the standard process of using a 302 form to refresh the witness's recollection.
DOJ-OGR-00017650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning challenges the witness's testimony by highlighting inconsistencies between her current account and a prior statement she gave to the government on September 19, 2019, concerning an encounter with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein and a discussion about scholarships. The witness suggests that any discrepancies may be due to transcription errors by the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00017610.jpg
This document is the first page of a court record for the jury trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the appearances for the trial held on December 1, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, listing the presiding judge, legal teams for both the prosecution and defense, and other law enforcement and paralegal personnel present.
DOJ-OGR-00015139.jpg
This legal document excerpts two key communications regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The first is a letter from the Attorney General (AG) to the FBI Director, demanding the immediate and complete turnover of all Epstein-related files. The second is a subsequent joint DOJ/FBI memorandum from July 6, 2025, which summarizes an exhaustive review of those files, confirming the existence of vast amounts of child abuse material but finding no evidence of an incriminating "client list" or blackmail that would justify investigating other third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00015116.jpg
This document is the second page of a letter filed on August 6, 2025, by a victim in the Epstein/Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The author expresses deep frustration with the DOJ and FBI regarding the lack of transparency, the sealing of documents, and the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison. The victim demands access to evidence seized from Epstein's properties, supports Senator Wyden's financial investigation, and questions the official narrative of Epstein's suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00015091.jpg
This legal document argues against the release of grand jury transcripts in the pending case of Maxwell. The author contends that secrecy is necessary to protect still-living witnesses, including active law enforcement personnel and alleged victims. The document also refutes the government's cited precedent, the Rosenberg case, arguing it is inapplicable because it involved a decades-old, concluded case, unlike Maxwell's ongoing one.
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-00008426.jpg
This legal document, dated December 15, 2021, is an argument from Ms. Maxwell's counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. Counsel argues that because Jane denied the substance of a prior statement in court, they should be allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, citing legal precedent. The document concludes by noting that due to time constraints, counsel was unable to meet a 10:15 p.m. deadline to list all such disputed statements.
DOJ-OGR-00008420.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 550) from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The Government argues regarding the admissibility of extrinsic evidence for impeaching a witness, specifically noting that the prior inconsistent statements come from FBI 302 reports written by agents, not the witness herself. The document cites various legal precedents to argue that if a witness admits to an inconsistency found in '3500 material' (Jencks Act material), no further extrinsic evidence is needed.
DOJ-OGR-00008419.jpg
This is a letter from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter argues that under Rule 613(b), the court has discretion to require that an alleged inconsistent statement be shown to a witness before extrinsic evidence is admitted, citing United States v. Marks.
DOJ-OGR-00008408.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or filing, dated December 17, 2021, arguing against the admissibility of a prior 2008 decision not to indict Ms. Maxwell. The speaker contends that the reasons for the 2008 decision by officials in the Southern District of Florida are not relevant to the current case, would be prejudicial, and could cause juror confusion. This is contrasted with the 'White' case, where a prior charging decision was deemed admissible because it directly related to a witness's credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008291.jpg
This is a page from a deposition transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (filed Dec 9, 2021). Maxwell is being questioned about a specific document containing contact information that a redacted individual turned over to the FBI, claiming it came from her computer. Maxwell denies recollection of the document and states she was not responsible for updating or keeping records of individuals Jeffrey Epstein hired.
DOJ-OGR-00008276.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 9, 2021, addresses the authentication and admissibility of Government Exhibit 52, described as a 'book' or 'household manual' belonging to Epstein and Maxwell. It discusses the defendant's challenge to Alessi's knowledge regarding the exhibit's origins and highlights the manual's contents, which detail practices and relationships between the defendant, Epstein, and other individuals. The document asserts that authentication does not require direct knowledge of creation or seizure, and chain of custody issues pertain to weight rather than admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00001830.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on November 6, 2020, likely in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues regarding discovery deadlines, agreeing to a laptop for the defendant to review evidence at the MDC but refusing early disclosure of witness lists (Giglio/Jencks material) seven months before trial. The text details upcoming discovery productions, specifically mentioning thousands of images/videos from Epstein's electronic devices, portions of seized iPads and an iPhone, and documents from the FBI's Florida files.
DOJ-OGR-00001820.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated November 6, 2020. The Government argues against the immediate production of witness lists (Giglio/Jencks material), stating it is premature seven months before trial. The document details an upcoming 'sixth discovery production' due November 9, 2020, which includes thousands of images/videos from Jeffrey Epstein's electronic devices, portions of his iPads and iPhone, and FBI Florida files.
DOJ-OGR-00001813.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a Government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on October 30, 2020. It addresses delays in electronic discovery production due to vendor volume and refutes defense accusations regarding the definition of the 'Prosecution Team' and the withholding of exculpatory material. A significant footnote (Footnote 2) argues that the 'genesis' of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Southern District of Florida is irrelevant because the current defendant (Maxwell) was not a party to it, was not named in it, and the agreement covered a different time period.
DOJ-OGR-00001788.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a court filing (likely from United States v. Maxwell based on the case number) dated October 7, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The Government updates the court on discovery progress, committing to a November 9, 2020 deadline for electronic discovery and outlining schedules for producing witness statements (Brady/Giglio materials) 4 to 8 weeks before trial. The document also argues the legal scope of the prosecution's obligations, citing case law (Avellino, Quinn) to assert that the prosecution is not responsible for knowledge held by other government agencies (like the FBI) not directly involved in the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00001638.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, is page 4 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues that public statements made by FBI Special Agent William Sweeney and attorneys for witnesses (David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Bradley Edwards) are prejudicial against Ghislaine Maxwell and violate local court rules. The document quotes these individuals characterizing Maxwell as a villain, speculating on her cooperation, and defining her role as the primary facilitator for Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00001618.jpg
This document details the July 2, 2020 arrest of the defendant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell) at a remote New Hampshire property. It describes her attempt to flee from agents inside the house and the discovery of a cell phone wrapped in tin foil to evade detection. The text also notes that the defendant's brother hired a security team of former British military members to guard her, and that the property was purchased in cash by an LLC.
DOJ-OGR-00001392.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim on behalf of their client Ms. Maxwell, details the significant challenges the defense faces in reviewing a massive amount of discovery evidence. The defense argues that new charges, the addition of 'Accuser-4', and the sheer volume of materials (including 214,000 photos and 250,000 non-searchable documents) necessitate a lengthy re-review process. The document also mentions technical difficulties with an FBI-supplied laptop, further complicating and delaying their review of 'Highly Confidential' photographs.
DOJ-OGR-00001167.jpg
This document is page 25 of a Government filing (likely opposing bail) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 28, 2020. It argues that Maxwell is a flight risk who evaded the FBI during her arrest (including wrapping a phone in tin foil) and was deceptive with Pretrial Services regarding her 'vast resources,' which far exceed the $3.8 million she initially disclosed. The text asserts that her wealth and willingness to deceive make detention necessary.
DOJ-OGR-00001166.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing (likely opposing bail) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that the defendant is a flight risk, noting that she actively hid from law enforcement and the media, and that her lawyers refused to disclose her location to the Government despite ongoing communications in 2019 and 2020. The text details the circumstances of her arrest, stating that she ignored FBI directives and ran away from clearly identified agents to hide in an inner room.
DOJ-OGR-00001126.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was not attempting to evade arrest but was following established security protocols in response to what her security guard mistakenly identified as an ambush by the press. It further explains that a cellphone was wrapped in tin foil to prevent press access after a court inadvertently released her number, not to evade law enforcement, citing her continued use of the phone and ownership of another, uncovered primary phone as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00000976.jpg
This legal document describes the intense and negative media scrutiny Ghislaine Maxwell has faced since Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death. It details a 'crushing onslaught' of media, a £10,000 bounty offered by The Sun newspaper, false reports about her whereabouts, and physical threats that have endangered her and impacted her family and friends. The document argues this has resulted in irreparable reputational harm and prejudged her guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00000935.jpg
This legal document argues against the government's assertion that Ghislaine Maxwell was a flight risk. It contends she was not hiding before her arrest, but was living openly in her New Hampshire home and communicating with the government via her lawyers. The document attributes her low profile to intense media harassment, citing a £10,000 bounty offered by The Sun tabloid, and includes a quote from an FBI official confirming the agency knew her whereabouts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity