Trove
Sign In Sign Up

The Court

Organization
Mentions
2003
Relationships
255
Events
3033
Documents
968
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.
255 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Ms. Sternheim
Legal representative
19 Very Strong
25
View
person Ms. Moe
Legal representative
19 Very Strong
26
View
person Ms. Comey
Legal representative
18 Very Strong
28
View
person Mr. Everdell
Legal representative
16 Very Strong
35
View
person MS. MENNINGER
Legal representative
13 Very Strong
12
View
person MR. PAGLIUCA
Legal representative
13 Very Strong
20
View
person defendant
Legal representative
12 Very Strong
8
View
person Ms. Williams
Professional
11 Very Strong
7
View
person Juror 50
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
12
View
person Juror No. 50
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
7
View
person Mr. Everdell
Professional
11 Very Strong
196
View
person Ms. Moe
Professional
11 Very Strong
228
View
person the defendant
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
13
View
person MR. WEINGARTEN
Professional
10 Very Strong
6
View
person MS. POMERANTZ
Professional
10 Very Strong
61
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
10
View
person Members of the jury
Professional
10 Very Strong
5
View
person Mr. Weinberg
Professional
10 Very Strong
8
View
person Ms. Sternheim
Professional
10 Very Strong
116
View
person Ms. Comey
Professional
10 Very Strong
155
View
person MR. ROSSMILLER
Professional
10 Very Strong
11
View
person MR. ROHRBACH
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
8
View
person MR. COHEN
Professional
10 Very Strong
9
View
person MR. PAGLIUCA
Professional
10 Very Strong
136
View
organization The government
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
7
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A Trial An ongoing trial where testimony is being heard and discussed. The case number is 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Ms. Maxwell challenged the strength of the government's case in pretrial motions pending before t... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding An initial bail hearing where an explanation was given for why Ms. Maxwell's phone was wrapped in... Court View
N/A Pretrial conference A pretrial conference was held where counsel for the government and defendant made their appearan... Courtroom View
N/A Court testimony Juror 50 was questioned by the Court regarding his answers on a questionnaire (Questions 48 and 4... Court View
N/A N/A Sentencing proceedings Court View
N/A N/A Voir dire (jury selection process). Court View
N/A N/A Legal argument regarding the 'business record exception' and admissibility of phone logs/notes. Courtroom View
N/A Jury selection (voir dire) The process of screening prospective jurors for Ms. Maxwell's trial, during which Juror No. 50 al... Court View
N/A Court testimony Direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding her understanding of 'significant informati... Courtroom (implied) View
N/A Court hearing Recross-examination of witness Brune regarding a fraud alert, Social Security numbers, and the di... Courtroom View
N/A Legal proceeding A pretrial conference where the Court informed the parties of its decision to release Mr. Robertson. N/A View
N/A Juror misconduct Juror No. 50 and a second deliberating juror were untruthful on their jury selection questionnair... The Court View
N/A Legal filing A discussion about filing a brief on the 900 series for the witness Maguire. The court mandates i... N/A View
N/A Trial The defendant's criminal trial, during which the Government observed her to be perfectly healthy ... Court View
N/A Sentencing The upcoming sentencing hearing where the Government is making recommendations for incarceration ... Court View
N/A Legal proceeding Initial bail hearing where the identity and connection of the Defendant's spouse was withheld fro... Court View
N/A Trial A legal trial where Juror 50 served. The document references events 'before or during trial' and ... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding An initial bail hearing where the defense raised numerous arguments. N/A View
N/A Court proceeding A cross-examination of witness Ms. Brune by attorney Mr. Shechtman regarding the jury selection p... Courtroom View
N/A N/A The Government objected to Maxwell's proposed questions; The Court ruled to ask a single question... Court View
N/A Legal hearing An initial hearing where the government made arguments about Ms. Maxwell's arrest. N/A View
N/A Legal ruling The Court ordered the defendant to be detained pending trial. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Ms. Maxwell is presenting a bail application for the Court's consideration. N/A View
N/A Trial The trial of the defendant, Maxwell, where Juror 50 served on the jury. N/A View

DOJ-OGR-00011618.jpg

This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding involving Ms. Maxwell. Her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that she be placed at the BOP facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program, which the court recommends to the Bureau of Prisons. The court also grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments against Ms. Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011617.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on July 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized' and she has received no money from it. The Court acknowledges she hasn't received the bequest but determines that other 'additional assets' make her able to pay the fine, and subsequently imposes the sentence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011614.jpg

This document is page 95 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. The judge rejects Maxwell's claims regarding poor treatment at the MDC and lack of preparation time, noting a pattern of dishonesty and 'deflection of blame' consistent with her perjury in a civil deposition. While acknowledging that Maxwell and her attorney Ms. Sternheim expressed sympathy for the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express acceptance of responsibility.

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011611.jpg

This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The judge outlines the rationale for a substantial sentence, citing the gravity of the offense, the harm to victims, and the need for general deterrence against sexual abuse and trafficking of minors. The judge emphasizes that Maxwell's wealth and status do not place her above the law.

Court transcript / sentencing hearing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011602.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript, likely from a sentencing hearing for a defendant named Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 22, 2022. The speaker, presumably her attorney, argues for a lenient sentence by highlighting her age (over 60), lack of prior criminal history, and positive contributions while incarcerated, such as tutoring fellow inmates in the MDC. The attorney contrasts her good character with the 'terrible conduct' for which she is being sentenced.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011600.jpg

This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a defense attorney's argument during a sentencing hearing. The attorney, Ms. Sternheim, asks the Court for a sentence below the recommended guidelines, arguing the government's request is disproportionate and that the more culpable Jeffrey Epstein would have faced the same sentencing guidelines as her client, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011572.jpg

This document is page 53 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of assets in the Presentence Report (PSR), specifically noting a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge determines that Maxwell has failed to establish an inability to pay a fine, citing the bequest and $3.8 million in assets reported in July 2020.

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011565.jpg

This legal document is a court filing from July 22, 2022, discussing a defendant's conviction for sex trafficking a victim named Carolyn. The court refutes the defense's argument against an "undue influence" sentencing enhancement, finding that the defendant exploited Carolyn's financial needs for her drug addiction and newborn son. The court concludes that taking advantage of a victim's financial vulnerability constitutes undue influence, referencing testimony from Carolyn and other victims (Jane, Annie) who received payments.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011537.jpg

This document is a partial transcript from a court hearing on July 22, 2022, discussing factual objections and the calculation of sentencing guidelines. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe participate in the discussion, with the Court adopting PSR recitations and outlining the process for guideline calculation. The defense contends a guideline calculation of 51 to 63 months' imprisonment, while the government's contention is cut off.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00005734.jpg

This is the conclusion page of a legal motion filed on October 29, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. In the document, Maxwell's defense requests that the Court exclude evidence seized during a search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005, as well as Government Exhibit 295 (an affidavit). The page cites Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts regarding the admission of out-of-court affidavits.

Legal filing (motion conclusion)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017962.jpg

This document is the final signature page (page 28) of a legal complaint filed on April 16, 2019, in Case 1:19-cv-03377. It includes a prayer for relief in excess of $75,000 and a formal Jury Demand. The document is signed by attorneys Joshua Schiller and Sigrid McCawley of the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. The page bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to Congress.

Legal court filing (complaint/pleading - signature page)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017345.jpg

This document recounts a legal case involving a young violinist accused of rape by a female college student, a charge deemed implausible by Itzhak Perlman and the narrator due to the physical disparities between the accuser and the accused. Despite a conviction by a judge in a bench trial, the conviction was later reversed on appeal due to the defense being denied access to the complainant's psychiatric records, leading the prosecution to drop the case.

Legal case narrative / book excerpt
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017262.jpg

This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz, given the context of the 'Tison v. Arizona' case discussed) describing Supreme Court oral arguments. The text details the legal debate regarding the 'felony murder' rule, specifically whether the brothers (Ricky and Raymond) had the specific intent to kill the Lyons family or were merely present. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of the Congressional investigation into the handling of the Epstein case, likely included to illustrate the author's legal philosophy or history.

Manuscript / memoir draft (legal narrative)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015654.jpg

This document is the conclusion page (page 5) of a legal filing dated February 8, 2016. Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley, representing non-party Virginia Giuffre, requests the court to allow a limited release of Giuffre's confidential deposition transcript to law enforcement. The document bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015654.

Legal filing (conclusion page)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015653.jpg

This document is a legal filing (page 4) arguing that Defendant Alan Dershowitz must produce witnesses, including Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, if he wishes to pursue issues regarding Bill Clinton's travel. It highlights that Dershowitz invoked attorney-client privilege during his January 2016 deposition when asked if Virginia Roberts was lying about Clinton socializing with Epstein. It also notes Epstein's refusal to be deposed despite court orders.

Legal motion / court filing (page 4)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015627.jpg

This document is page 7 of a response in the case Edwards v. Dershowitz (CACE 15-000072). It details discovery disputes between victims' counsel (Edwards and Cassell) and the Government regarding the production of documents and the attempt to add Virginia Giuffre (Jane Doe No. 3) to the case in 2014. The text highlights the Government's delay tactics and eventual refusal to stipulate the addition of new victims.

Legal filing (court motion response)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013384.jpg

This page from a legal filing (likely by attorney Brad Edwards) argues that discovery efforts targeting Jeffrey Epstein's friends were necessary and valid. It highlights that Epstein and his household staff—who helped recruit minor girls—pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about activities at the West Palm Beach mansion. The document asserts that evidence of other sexual abuse is admissible to prove modus operandi or motive.

Legal brief / court filing (page 15)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021933.jpg

This page is a rough draft transcript of a deposition involving the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamp 021933). A witness is being questioned about why they filed a motion accusing Professor Alan Dershowitz without contacting him first to verify facts or ask for refutation. The witness explains that the U.S. Attorney's Office had delayed answering a request for consent for months (dating back to Summer 2014), leading to a court filing on January 21, 2015. The witness begins to explain the decision not to contact Dershowitz as a 'cost benefit situation' before the page ends.

Deposition transcript / legal proceeding (rough draft)
2025-11-19
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