the government
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | An alleged promise was made by the government to victims ('the girls') that they would receive mo... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement | Southern District of Florida | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018349.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The judge is ruling to exclude photographic evidence of a stuffed tiger and dog found in Epstein's New York apartment in 2019, deeming them irrelevant and prejudicial because they do not match the specific 'artwork of animals' described by the witness 'Jane' from years prior. However, the judge notes anticipation that 'schoolgirl outfits' found in the same apartment in 2019 will likely be introduced.
DOJ-OGR-00018339.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge is addressing a government request regarding the testimony of a witness using the pseudonym 'Kate.' The Judge notes that while Kate alleges sexual conduct with Jeffrey Epstein, she was over the age of consent at the time and is not a victim of the specific crimes charged in this indictment. However, her testimony is deemed relevant to Mann Act counts and 404(b) evidence. The Judge rules that her testimony regarding sexual details will be limited to avoid prejudice and that the jury will be instructed that the Court prohibited asking for those specific details.
DOJ-OGR-00018311.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of Mr. Parkinson by attorney Mr. Everdell in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on a specific photograph of an unidentified woman found during a search of Jeffrey Epstein's house conducted by Parkinson. Everdell establishes that Parkinson did not recall finding, nor did the government present, any other photographs or video evidence of this specific woman from the search.
DOJ-OGR-00017679.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attorney questions Jane about prior statements she made to the government, confirming that she previously stated Maxwell was not present or did not witness specific sexual acts (oral sex, intercourse) between Jane and Jeffrey Epstein. The witness confirms several of these prior statements while stating she does not recall others.
DOJ-OGR-00015111.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) addressed to Judge Paul Engelmayer, dated August 6, 2025. It argues for strict protocols and heightened caution regarding the unsealing of grand jury materials to protect the privacy and safety of Epstein and Maxwell's victims, citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Rule 6(e). A significant footnote highlights that several victims have already died by suicide or overdose and argues that a potential pardon would cause irreparable harm.
DOJ-OGR-00008656.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Instruction No. 28) filed on December 18, 2021, in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the 'Third Element' of Count Six: Sex Trafficking of an Individual Under the Age of 18. The instruction clarifies that the Government must prove Maxwell knew the victim, identified as 'Carolyn,' would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, and explicitly states that the victim's consent is not a defense if she was under 18.
DOJ-OGR-00008588.jpg
This document is page 50 (internal paging 49) of a court filing (Document 563) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions explaining the legal standards for establishing 'guilty knowledge' and participation in a conspiracy. The text clarifies that Maxwell does not need to know every detail or member of the conspiracy to be found guilty, and that a single act can establish membership, making her liable for the conspiracy's activities.
DOJ-OGR-00008568.jpg
This document contains Jury Instruction No. 20 from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 18, 2021. It defines the first element of Count Four: Transportation of an Individual Under the Age of 17 to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity. The text outlines that the Government must prove Maxwell knowingly transported 'Jane' in interstate commerce, noting that personal transportation is not required if she made arrangements (like purchasing tickets), and that the victim's consent is irrelevant to the charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008567.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Instruction No. 19) filed on December 18, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines the three legal elements required to prove 'Count Four: Transportation of an Individual Under the Age of 17 to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity,' specifically relating to a victim identified as 'Jane' between 1994 and 1997. The text includes markup showing specific legal language adjustments, such as defining the age requirement and limiting the scope to interstate commerce.
DOJ-OGR-00008558.jpg
This document is page 20 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 11 regarding 'Multiple Counts,' instructing the jury to consider each of the six counts separately. The text shows specific edits replacing the generic term 'Defendant' with 'Ms. Maxwell' and outlines the burden of proof required by the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00008524.jpg
This document is page 68 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) dated December 17, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 49, which explicitly instructs the jury that Ms. Maxwell exercised her Constitutional right not to testify, that the burden of proof rests solely with the Government, and that no adverse inference can be drawn against her for not taking the witness stand.
DOJ-OGR-00008514.jpg
This document is page 58 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 41: Time of Offense,' which instructs the jury that the Government is not required to prove the exact dates of the alleged conduct, provided it occurred 'on or about' the alleged times.
DOJ-OGR-00008487.jpg
This document is page 31 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 23 regarding Counts Two and Four, clarifying that for the charges of enticement and transportation, the Government need only prove the Defendant had the requisite intent, and it is immaterial whether the intended sexual activity actually occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00008361.jpg
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government informs the court that, after conferring with the defense, they will not agree to a stipulation regarding the testimony of Robert Glassman. The Government argues that a specific statement in an email is inadmissible and requires context to be understood by the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008341.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on December 10, 2021. The Judge ('The Court') is discussing jury instructions regarding a specific witness involved in sexual conduct in New Mexico. The Judge notes that while the witness was above the age of consent in New Mexico, the government is using the evidence to prove enticement for illegal acts in New York, and the jury instructions must accurately reflect this legal distinction without favoring the government's arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00001895.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Dec 10, 2020) detailing the government's efforts to notify victims regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines specific dates in July 2020 when notifications were sent regarding her arrest, presentment, and bail hearing. It explicitly mentions notifications sent to individuals identifying as victims of both Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, even those not named in the indictment.
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-00001744.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on August 25, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court addresses the Defendant's request regarding pretrial disclosure schedules (denied without prejudice) and conditions of confinement. Specifically, the Court denies Maxwell's request for a court order mandating her release to the general population and specific discovery access, noting that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has already modified conditions to allow her 13 hours of access to discovery materials daily.
DOJ-OGR-00001666.jpg
This is page 3 of a government filing dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The government argues against the defense's request to publicly name victims/witnesses, calling the defense's argument 'absurd' and 'offensive' particularly regarding the suggestion that victims derive a 'benefit' from public identification. The document outlines the proposed protective order which would allow defense counsel to discuss identities privately but prohibits public dissemination to prevent harassment and intimidation.
DOJ-OGR-00001658.jpg
This document is page 12 of 13 from a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 27, 2020. It outlines legal stipulations regarding the handling of confidential information, specifically setting timelines relative to appeals and dismissals (referencing 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Paragraphs 19 and 20 detail that the provisions remain in effect until mutual written agreement or court order, and mandate that the Government and Defense Counsel meet to discuss evidence presentation prior to hearings or trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001587.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense argues that she is not a danger to the community, cites the health risks of COVID-19 in prison, and claims she is not a flight risk due to her strong ties to the U.S. (citizenship, 30-year residency, family in NY) and her history of cooperation through counsel since Epstein's arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00001541.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on July 7, 2020, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It outlines strict COVID-19 entry protocols for the courthouse, instructions for defense counsel regarding the 'Waiver of Right to be Present' form, and mandates that the Government ensure crime victims are notified of proceedings and their rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
DOJ-OGR-00001384.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated April 19, 2021, in which Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team argues against the Government's narrative regarding her confinement. The defense claims that unsanitary conditions are caused by others, accuses the Government of a double standard and HIPAA violations for releasing Maxwell's vaccination status while keeping accusers anonymous, and asserts that her vaccination does not resolve issues regarding her ability to prepare for trial using 'ancient' technology.
DOJ-OGR-00001375.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal reply brief filed on April 19, 2021, in Case 21-770 (associated with Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense argues that the lower court did not conduct a 'lengthy bail hearing' and that the Government presented no actual evidence, relying solely on the text of the Indictment to argue the strength of the case and flight risk. The filing contends the court erred by accepting the Indictment itself as proof of the strength of evidence.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | the government | Kate | $0.00 | Public assistance/benefits sought by the witnes... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Received | Ms. Maxwell | the government | $0.00 | Judge intends to impose a fine; amount not spec... | View |
Production of documents/material
the government served [Redacted] with a subpoena to produce [Redacted]
Redactions and sealing
Government consents to sealing cosigner names and confidential discovery materials but opposes in camera conference.
Concerns about future employment
Expressed substantial concern about risks association with the case will pose to future employment.
Witness testimony
Reference to a letter discussing a witness regarding the contact book.
Case arguments
Referenced by the speaker: 'The government said in its opening brief...'
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
Obtaining evidence
Subpoenas to the Recipient used to obtain evidence for the criminal case.
Retainer fee
Dispute over whether Jane told the government she didn't know she needed a $250,000 retainer.
Closing Arguments/Briefs
Arguments establishing the 'playbook' pattern and conspiracy.
Modifications for presentation of evidence
Agreement to meet and confer in advance of any hearings or trial to discuss and agree to any modifications necessary for the presentation of evidence.
Expert Witness Notice
Notice proposing Rocchio as an expert witness and outlining expected testimony topics.
Providing information
Lawyers provided information to the government; government helped build civil cases/settlements.
Usage of boots
Witness explained to the government that she did not wear the boots previously, but then did wear them later.
Initial Bail Hearing
Proffer that testimony would be corroborated by 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence'.
Gov. Mem. at 11
Concessions regarding evidence (specifics redacted).
Exhibits/Redactions
Email sent regarding exhibits/redactions.
Jury Instructions
[A]t least as to these Mann Act charges, and the jury is going to be instructed here that the relevant illegal sexual activity has to be the violation of the New York offense.
Eye Mask Policy
Informed Government that eye masks are contraband and cannot be provided.
Documents related to Ms. Maxwell
Subpoenas issued for documents related to Maxwell.
Conditions of Confinement
Details on material changes to confinement, access to legal materials, and search frequency
Missed Flight
Witness told the government she missed her flight.
Regarding Juror No. 1
A letter received by the government that prompted them to Google the juror.
Protective Order/Subpoena
Representations that reassured the recipient to modify a Protective Order.
Compliance with subpoenas
Stated they would not contest compliance but believed protective orders precluded full compliance
Conferral regarding filing
Government sought to confer with defense counsel but received no response.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity