Government officials
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Average American
|
Financial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Dershowitz negotiates Epstein's confidential non-prosecution agreement. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | An alleged event where the government told 'many of the girls' they would receive money at the co... | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Jane met with the government/FBI to discuss her case, after having already disclosed details to h... | N/A | View |
| 2020-06-01 | N/A | Interview of 'Mr [Redacted]' by the government (likely SDNY). | Unknown | View |
| 2020-03-12 | N/A | Submission of factual statement draft for non-prosecution discussion | Email/Google Docs | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Government interview with Jane regarding her recollection of events. | Unknown | View |
| 2019-12-20 | N/A | Meeting between Mr. [Redacted] (Patel's client) and the Government Office. | Government Office | View |
| 2019-12-01 | N/A | Meeting between Andrew Patel's client and the Government (US Attorney's Office). | Unknown | View |
| 2019-10-01 | N/A | Victim's meeting | United States (implied by v... | View |
| 2019-09-01 | N/A | Witness's first meeting with the government, attended by her attorneys. | Unknown | View |
| 2019-09-01 | N/A | Witness meeting with the government. | Unknown | View |
| 2019-08-10 | N/A | Officials gave a statement regarding Jeffrey Epstein (referenced in email text 'given a statement... | N/A | View |
| 2019-07-18 | N/A | Planned meeting at Court where Epstein's Austrian passport is to be inspected by his attorneys an... | Court | View |
| 2019-04-05 | N/A | Attorney Proffer Meeting | Government Offices (Redacted) | View |
| 2019-03-29 | N/A | Gathering involving the 'entire govt' (Macron government) at 'the pyramid'. | The Pyramid (likely Louvre,... | View |
| 2019-03-29 | N/A | Gathering of government officials ('entire govt', 'ministers of the elite'). | The Pyramid (likely Paris) | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Proposed trip to Florida for groundwork on relevant individuals/victims. | Florida | View |
| 2018-01-01 | N/A | National People's Congress | Beijing | View |
| 2017-05-01 | N/A | The 'Clinton investigation' was allegedly 'squelched'. | Not specified | View |
| 2016-11-15 | N/A | Meeting with government regarding foreign workers and painters (Epstein mentions 'on the 15th', l... | Unknown (likely Palm Beach ... | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Financial crisis involving executive bonuses and government bailout. | USA | View |
| 2007-09-21 | N/A | Plea Deal Negotiation | Florida | View |
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Witness met with the government. | Unspecified | View |
| 0013-06-01 | N/A | Conference on Bitcoin and regulation sponsored by Thompson Reuters and ICMEC. | Carlucci Auditorium, United... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008529.jpg
This document is page 73 of 82 from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 54, titled 'Persons Not on Trial,' which explicitly instructs the jury not to speculate why other individuals are not on trial or draw inferences from their absence. The document is stamped with Bates number DOJ-OGR-00008529.
DOJ-OGR-00008509.jpg
This document is page 53 of 82 from a court filing dated December 17, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text contains Jury Instruction No. 37 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five, specifically defining the 'Fourth Element' of Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law. It instructs the jury that the Government must prove an 'overt act' was committed to further the conspiracy, clarifying that such an act does not need to be inherently criminal on its own.
DOJ-OGR-00001698.jpg
Page 9 of a court order (Protective Order) from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The document defines 'Highly Confidential Information' as materials containing sexualized images of individuals and outlines the strict limitations on its use, specifically prohibiting use in civil proceedings. It also establishes the protocol for the Defense Counsel to challenge the Government's classification of such materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001695.jpg
This is page 6 of a court filing (Document 36) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 30, 2020. The document outlines protocols for handling 'Confidential Information' during discovery, specifically regarding the protection of PII for victims and witnesses, while noting that victims who have publicly identified themselves on the record are exempt from this confidentiality. It also establishes the procedure for Defense Counsel to challenge confidentiality designations made by the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00001653.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated July 27, 2020. It outlines protocols for handling 'Confidential Information' during the discovery process, specifically defining what constitutes confidential material and how personal identification of victims and witnesses must be protected. It also notes that victims or witnesses who have publicly identified themselves are not subject to these specific confidentiality restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00001278.jpg
This document is page 5 (marked page 7 of 12 in the PDF) of a court order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text outlines the legal standards for bail and detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), citing Second Circuit precedents regarding the presumption of detention and the burden of proof. The 'Discussion' section notes that the Defendant (Maxwell) is filing her third motion for bail, arguing that new proposed conditions and pending pre-trial motions warrant a reconsideration of her detention.
DOJ-OGR-00002010.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing (Document 97) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 14, 2020. The defense argues that the discovery provided by the government lacks contemporaneous evidence (emails, texts, diaries, police reports) implicating Maxwell in the alleged 1994-1997 conspiracy and claims that existing police reports are exculpatory rather than incriminating. Large portions of the text, specifically appearing to detail specific evidence or lack thereof, are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00021967.jpg
This is page 9 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on December 16, 2019. The Judge is addressing counsel regarding the release conditions for a defendant named Ms. Noel. The Judge clarifies that while the defense and government have reached an agreement, the Court has final authority, and discusses a specific pretrial service policy regarding firearms, noting that the case involves allegations about documents, not violence.
DOJ-OGR-00019539.jpg
This page documents a protective order regarding discovery procedures in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It defines 'Confidential Information' as materials containing personal details of victims and witnesses, while explicitly excluding those who have publicly identified themselves on the record. It also establishes a mechanism for Defense Counsel to challenge the Government's confidentiality designations.
DOJ-OGR-00019532.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court order (likely a Protective Order) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). It outlines the strict protocols for the Defense Counsel regarding the handling, return, or destruction of 'Discovery' and 'Confidential Information' provided by the Government. It stipulates that materials must be destroyed or returned within 30 days of the finalization of the case (including appeals) and mandates that both parties meet to discuss evidence presentation before trials.
DOJ-OGR-00019512.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court order (Document 292) filed on July 27, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It outlines strict protocols for handling confidential discovery materials, mandating that the Defendant may only review certain materials in the presence of counsel and cannot possess copies. It also prohibits public filing of confidential information without authorization and mandates the return or destruction of discovery materials at the conclusion of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019309.jpg
Page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing a Protective Order. It outlines strict conditions under which the Defendant and Defense Counsel may access 'Confidential Information,' prohibiting its use in civil proceedings and mandating that the Defendant only review materials under the supervision of counsel or via Bureau of Prisons protocols.
DOJ-OGR-00019308.jpg
Page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, related to Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing the protocol for handling 'Confidential Information' during discovery. It defines such information as including the identities of victims and witnesses, while noting that publicly self-identified victims are not confidential. It also establishes a mechanism for Defense Counsel to challenge the Government's confidentiality designations.
DOJ-OGR-00014643.jpg
This document is page 243 (transcript page 3077) of the jury charge filed on August 10, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 53 regarding the lawful use and consideration of seized electronic communications as evidence, and the beginning of Instruction No. 54 regarding 'Persons Not on Trial'.
DOJ-OGR-00014617.jpg
This document is page 217 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Court is providing jury instructions regarding Count Five, charging Ghislaine Maxwell with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors between 2001 and 2004. It details Instruction No. 35, which explains the burden of proof required to establish Maxwell's membership in the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00005369.jpg
This document is page 12 of 17 from a court filing (Document 367-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 22, 2021. It lists proposed voir dire (jury selection) questions 43 through 48, focusing on juror bias regarding expert witnesses, evidence types, and the absence of co-conspirators at trial. The document contains significant sidebar commentary detailing objections from the Defense regarding the wording of questions about search evidence and missing witnesses, citing legal precedents like Skilling v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00005248.jpg
This document is page 3 of a Government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 15, 2021. The Government argues that the defense's proposed deadline of November 15, 2021, for filing Rule 412 motions (regarding the admissibility of victims' sexual behavior) is impractical as it conflicts with jury selection and the Thanksgiving holiday. The Government requests an earlier deadline to allow sufficient time for investigation and *in camera* hearings.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019634.jpg
This document is page 146 from the book 'How America Lost Its Secrets' by journalist Edward Jay Epstein (indicated by the ISBN in the footer), which was produced as evidence in a House Oversight investigation (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019634). The text discusses the security failures at the NSA that allowed Edward Snowden to breach their systems, specifically criticizing the outsourcing of technical work and the removal of 'stovepiping' safeguards after 9/11. It also mentions an unprofessional culture within the NSA where agents exchanged lewd photos of suspects.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020517.jpg
This page, identified as page 58 of a House Oversight document, outlines the operational roles of US think tanks, including influencing policy, providing government research contracts, and serving as a 'revolving door' for government personnel. It discusses the ethical necessity of maintaining analytical independence from funders despite potential outside pressure. The text transitions into a specific section regarding 'The Role of China in American Think Tanks,' introducing findings based on interviews with seventeen analysts from Washington and New York.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020472.jpg
This document, page 13 of a report labeled 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020472', details US congressional staff delegation trips to China, focusing on the period from 1989-2001. It identifies key US and Chinese organizations that facilitated these exchanges and describes how the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown disrupted this engagement, shifting China's strategy towards lobbying the US Congress. This document is about US-China relations and contains no information related to Jeffrey Epstein.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | Government officials | Women (Victims) | $0.00 | Proposed restitution, monetary sanctions, and l... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Government officials | National Intellig... | $0.00 | Reference to the 'secret intelligence budget' j... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Government officials | taxpayers | $981,000,000,000.00 | Total Subsidies & Tax Expenditures | View |
| N/A | Paid | Government officials | Preschool Programs | $59,000,000,000.00 | Estimated cost of a universal preschool program. | View |
| 2025-12-01 | Received | taxpayers | Government officials | $1,700,000,000,000.00 | Potential additional revenue from reducing tax ... | View |
| 2020-08-13 | Paid | Government officials | Defense counsel | $0.00 | Production of discovery totaling more than 150,... | View |
| 2020-01-13 | Received | Insys Executives | Government officials | $306,000,000.00 | Proposed restitution amount in opioid kickback ... | View |
| 2019-12-20 | Received | Epstein Estate | Government officials | $0.00 | Discussion regarding 'resolving the Government'... | View |
| 2019-12-19 | Received | Epstein Estate | Government officials | $0.00 | Discussion regarding 'Government's potential ci... | View |
| 2019-12-12 | Paid | Government officials | Private Insurers | $12,000,000,000.00 | Dispute amount in Affordable Care Act case | View |
| 2016-06-30 | Received | Telecom Operators | Government officials | $130,000,000.00 | Estimated potential income increase for the gov... | View |
| 2016-06-30 | Paid | Government officials | Ministry of Health | $23,000,000,000.00 | Allocated to the MoH for the NTP (National Tran... | View |
| 2016-06-01 | Paid | Government officials | Private Providers... | $0.00 | Unpaid receivables for treating government pati... | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Paid | Government officials | ["Caremaster Medi... | $23,000,000,000.00 | Estimated minimum unpaid capex/arrears | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Paid | Government officials | ["Caremaster Medi... | $100,000,000,000.00 | Estimated maximum unpaid capex/arrears | View |
| 2010-01-01 | Received | TARP | Government officials | $26,000,000,000.00 | TARP Net Profit | View |
| 2010-01-01 | Paid | Government officials | Expanded Coverage | $938,000,000,000.00 | Gross cost of expanded coverage | View |
| 1986-01-01 | Received | Violator | Government officials | $500,000.00 | Potential fine per count for money laundering u... | View |
| 1966-01-01 | Paid | Government officials | Project Horizon | $6,000,000,000.00 | Predicted cost of the permanent outpost/base. | View |
| 1966-01-01 | Paid | Government officials | Project Horizon | $6,000,000,000.00 | Predicted cost of the permanent outpost/base. | View |
Research
Increasingly difficult to arrange interviews.
Grand Jury Subpoena
Request 8 seeks a Grand Jury Subpoena that was served on BSF by the Government.
Proffered evidence at trial
An endorsed letter and another letter were provided to the defense, highlighting proffered evidence and providing Jencks Act materials.
Grand Jury Subpoena
Subpoena issued to obtain evidence, which Maxwell argues was unlawful.
Topics of cross examination for Kate
Productive conversation regarding upcoming witness cross-examination.
Response to motion
Dkt. No. 41; stated BOP modified confinement to allow 13 hours/day access to discovery.
The issue of the civil protective orders and related info...
A letter was filed on the public docket by the Government concerning the information about the modification of civil protective orders. This letter is cited as Dkt. No. 46.
Redaction issues
Conferred to confirm resolution of pending redaction issues over the weekend.
Additional investigation
The Government interviewed additional witnesses as part of an investigation to corroborate Minor Victim-4.
Proposed protective order
The parties met and conferred, resolving nearly all issues related to the proposed protective order before it was entered by the court.
Protective Order Exception
The document references a letter from the Government (Dkt. No. 33) which notes that the Defense can apply for exceptions to the protective order on a case-by-case basis.
Foreign affairs and domestic issues
Meetings between US congressional staff and Chinese officials, described as generally cordial and substantive.
Opposition Brief
Gov’t Opp. Br. at 20
Request to intervene and stay Doe v. Indyke
The Government sent a letter to Judge Freeman requesting permission to intervene and stay the Doe v. Indyke case. The letter explained that, as far as the Government was aware, it was the only case in the district that had not been resolved or stayed.
Cross-examination topics
Government conferred with defense counsel and presented about a dozen topics believed to be improper for cross-examination.
Request for inspection
Defense asked for an inspection the week before the conference.
Witness lists and Secrecy Factors
Submission regarding grand jury secrecy factors, witness status, and proposed redactions.
Submission Instructions
Instructions to send submissions to chambers in a sealed envelope marked 'Attention: Grady MacPhee' and email electronic submissions to Grady_MacPhee@nysd.uscourts.gov.
Gov't Opp. at 192
Argument regarding notice of co-conspirator statements via Jencks Act production.
Conclusions of the Government’s review into the investiga...
Announced conclusions regarding the investigation into Epstein and Maxwell.
Investigation into uncharged third parties associated wit...
Concluded that no evidence could predicate an investigation into uncharged third parties associated with Epstein’s and Maxwell’s criminal scheme.
Investigation into uncharged third parties associated wit...
Concluded that no evidence could predicate an investigation into uncharged third parties associated with Epstein’s and Maxwell’s criminal scheme.
Witness Declaration
Declaration disclosed orally and in written form.
Sentencing Submission
Government's sentencing arguments.
Gov. Br. at 11
Arguments regarding McDonough standard.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity