| 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 |
This is page 34 of a legal filing (Document 397) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The Government argues against the defendant's motion to exclude certain evidence under Rule 404(b), asserting they provided sufficient notice and Jencks Act materials. The text cites Second Circuit case law to define relevant evidence and justify the admission of uncharged crimes if they are inextricably intertwined with the charged offense.
This document is a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated October 29, 2021, in which the defense objects to specific government exhibits. The defense argues that photographs (Exhibits 251 and 288, description redacted) and a box containing 'Twin Torpedos' (Exhibit 294) seized from Epstein's Palm Beach home in 2005 are irrelevant, prejudicial, and inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence.
This is page 8 of a court filing (Document 195) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The Government argues against the defendant's attempt to issue a subpoena to 'BSF' (Boies Schiller Flexner), characterizing it as an improper 'fishing expedition' for victim information and impeachment material that violates the 'Nixon test.' The Government also notes that the defendant failed to file a required response by the April 2, 2021 deadline.
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 148) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 4, 2021. The text constitutes 'Section V. Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of Witness Statements,' where the defense argues they need early access to Jencks Act material to prepare for trial. They cite the age of the allegations (25 years), the lack of electronic records from that era, the location of witnesses in foreign countries, and the logistical difficulties posed by the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for the request.
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Document 148) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. It contains legal arguments by the defense requesting the immediate disclosure of 'Brady' and 'Giglio' material (exculpatory and impeachment evidence) from the government. The defense argues that Ms. Maxwell needs this information early to prepare an effective defense, citing various legal precedents (United States v. Rodriguez, Bagley, etc.) to support the claim that impeachment evidence falls under the Brady rule.
This is Page 3 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that the Defense's proposed deadline of November 15, 2021, for filing Rule 412 motions (concerning the admissibility of evidence regarding a victim's sexual behavior) is too close to trial, specifically conflicting with jury selection and the Thanksgiving holiday. The Government requests an earlier deadline to ensure victims have sufficient notice and the Court has time to resolve sensitive issues.
This page is from a Government court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated March 29, 2021. It details the discovery schedule, specifically noting the provision of evidence related to 'Minor Victim-4' and the intent to produce statements from over 250 non-testifying witnesses related to the Epstein investigation by April 12, 2021. It also confirms the trial is scheduled to proceed on July 12, 2021, and discusses potential motions regarding the 'S2 Indictment.'
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Instruction No. 40) for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It defines the legal concept of 'Venue' within the Southern District of New York and lists the specific counties included in that jurisdiction. The instruction clarifies that the Government must prove venue by a 'preponderance of the evidence' rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' stating that Maxwell must be acquitted of any specific offense if venue is not established for it.
This document is page 39 of 83 from a court filing (Document 565) dated December 19, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains specific jury instructions defining the legal standards for 'aiding and abetting,' clarifying that mere presence at a crime scene or knowledge of a crime is insufficient for conviction; the defendant must have willfully sought to help the crime succeed.
This document is page 126 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions explaining legal standards for proving a conspiracy, specifically regarding 'Count One, Three, and Five' of the indictment. The text instructs that circumstantial evidence ('actions speak louder than words') can be used to prove a mutual understanding between conspirators beyond a reasonable doubt.
This document is page 58 of a legal filing (Document 397) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It details a legal dispute regarding discovery, specifically the defendant's repeated requests for the Government to identify uncharged co-conspirators and their statements. The text outlines a history of motions (Dkt. Nos. 293, 297, 317, 320, 331) where the defense sought this information and the Government's opposition to identifying specific co-conspirator statements within their production.
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 4, 2021, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense. The defense argues that despite receiving millions of pages of discovery in November 2020, there is almost no information regarding the specific allegations from the 1994-1997 indictment period. Consequently, the defense requests a 'bill of particulars,' early access to the government's witness list (Jencks Act material), and 404(b) evidence to adequately prepare for trial given the 25-year age of the case and COVID-19 delays.
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Visoski (likely David Visoski, a pilot) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on pre-trial meetings between Visoski and the government (prosecution), specifically regarding flight log entries. Visoski confirms that the government pointed out specific flights where a female passenger was listed only by a first name, which matched the true first name of a person referred to as 'Jane'.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the closing summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. She attacks the credibility of a witness named 'Jane' by highlighting discrepancies between Jane's testimony about the Palm Beach house layout (specifically the location of the massage room and master bathroom) and the actual floor plans/photos. Menninger argues that Jane's description of a 'light beachy feel' and a separate massage room off the master bath is factually incorrect, asserting the attached room is merely a closet.
This document is page 21 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains instructions from the Judge to the jury regarding their conduct, specifically forbidding them from discussing the case with one another or outside parties until deliberations begin. The text explicitly lists various communication technologies and social media platforms (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.) that jurors are prohibited from using to discuss the trial.
This page from a court transcript (case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details sentencing proceedings for Ms. Maxwell. The Judge rejects the claim that Maxwell is indigent, citing $22 million in assets reported in 2020 and a lack of documentation regarding her marriage/divorce, and states an intention to impose a fine. The Judge also notes the government is not seeking restitution, finds no grounds for downward departures from sentencing guidelines, and calls for a lunch break.
This document is page 39 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The judge is ruling on which sentencing guidelines apply (2003 vs 2004) based on the timeline of evidence involving 'Epstein's house' and a victim named Carolyn. The judge determines that message pads evidence (including exhibit GX-4B) does not sufficiently prove the offense continued after November 1, 2004, leading to the application of the 2003 guidelines and a discussion of the 4B1.5(b) enhancement for a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct.
This document is Page 4 of a court filing (Document 165) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on March 9, 2021. The text is the Government's argument opposing the defendant's third request for bail, citing her extreme flight risk, substantial foreign ties (including citizenship in a non-extradition country), and lack of candor regarding finances. The Government argues that the defendant's offer to renounce citizenship and place assets in monitorship is insufficient to assure her appearance in court.
| 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 |
Informed that MCC staff confirmed video preservation (later found to be incorrect).
Discussion regarding abuse history; defense claims Jane stated abuse started in NY during this interview.
Witness allegedly had 'no specific memory' at this time.
Informed Government regarding providing a hard drive for discovery.
A conversation held between the witness and the government.
Multiple communications.
The government provided notice to all known victims about the day's court proceeding, either directly or through their counsel.
Witness stated they maintained a journal throughout high school.
Witness discussed her age and memories of a trip to New York; referenced in a summary document (3514-006).
First meeting with government prosecutors, attended by Boies Schiller attorneys.
Witness confirms speaking with the government on this date.
Witness met with the government; discussed in the transcript regarding whether she refreshed her memory via a journal beforehand.
Government began issuing subpoenas for Ms. Maxwell's financial information.
Likely regarding the discovery of the passport.
Submission of unredacted police report and details regarding a foreign passport found in Epstein's safe.
The Government sent a letter to the Court providing details about allegedly suspicious payments made by the Defendant in 2018, a Palm Beach police report, an expired Austrian passport, and cash and diamonds found in Mr. Epstein's safe.
Government arguments regarding detention.
A letter in which the Government informed the Court it had obtained records from a financial institution showing suspicious payments made by Jeffrey Epstein.
Victims requested the Government seek detention, citing safety fears and fairness concerns regarding wealthy defendants.
Informed court of suspicious payments and police report.
The Government submitted a letter application requesting the court to deny bail for Mr. Epstein, arguing he poses a danger to the community and could obstruct justice by intimidating witnesses.
The Government submitted a letter application requesting that the Court deny bail for Mr. Epstein, arguing he is a danger to the community and may obstruct justice.
Defense contacted Gov after FBI failed to locate defendant for subpoena service.
Defense contacted Gov when FBI attempted to serve subpoena but could not locate defendant.
Defense counsel contacted Government when FBI attempted to serve subpoena but could not locate defendant.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity