United States
LocationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
32
Very Strong
|
72 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
organization
Iran
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Davis
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Bodmer
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Dreier
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
English
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Boustani
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Torres
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
location
China
|
Unknown |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Smith
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
location
China
|
Geopolitical rivals |
9
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Sampson
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Carrillo-Villa
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Petrov
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Dominguez
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Hung
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Abdellatif El Mokadem
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Rowe
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Alindato-Perez
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Crowell
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Deutsch
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-09-16 | N/A | Deadline for United States to submit amicus letter brief regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's arguments ... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2020-08-17 | Legal decision | Decision in the case of United States v. Kozel. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-08-13 | Discovery | The government produced other discovery materials. | N/A | View |
| 2020-08-05 | Discovery | The government produced certain discovery materials. | N/A | View |
| 2020-07-07 | Legal event | A superseding indictment was issued. | United States | View |
| 2020-07-06 | Legal filing | The 'Commitment to Another District' document for Ghislaine Maxwell was filed with the U.S. Distr... | DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE | View |
| 2020-07-02 | Legal filing | Filing of a 'Commitment to Another District' document for Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing charges an... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Legal case | Decision in the case of United States v. Deutsch. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Legal case decision | Decision in United States v. Deutsch. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-06-23 | Legal ruling | The Court in United States v. Abdellatif El Mokadem ruled that the defendant should be released p... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-06-23 | Legal case | Decision in the case of United States v. Abdellatif El Mokadem. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-06-23 | Legal case decision | Decision in United States v. Abdellatif El Mokadem. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-05-19 | Legal ruling | Ruling in the case of United States v. Ortiz. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-04-13 | Legal ruling | Ruling by Judge Gardephe in the case of United States v. Paulino, denying a bail application. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-04-10 | Legal ruling | Ruling by Judge Ramos in the case of United States v. Nunez. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-04-07 | Court decision | A court in S.D.N.Y. ruled in United States v. Eley that the defendant's request for release was n... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-04-07 | Legal proceeding | Decision in the case of United States v. Belardo. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-04-02 | Legal decision | The case of United States v. Boatwright was decided. | D. Nev. | View |
| 2020-03-31 | Legal case | Decision in the case of United States v. Chandler. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-03-31 | Legal ruling | The ruling in United States v. Chandler, which found that the coronavirus pandemic constituted a ... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-03-31 | Legal case decision | Decision in United States v. Chandler. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-02-25 | Court proceeding | A court transcript from the case United States v. Randall is cited. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Decision in the case of United States v. Scarborough. | 6th Cir. | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) | 3d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018415.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on her past modeling work in Europe (Milan, Paris, London) and her subsequent move to the United States on an 'extraordinary ability' visa.
DOJ-OGR-00016175.jpg
This document is a transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim in a legal case. The statement aims to undermine the credibility of a witness named Kate by portraying her as an ambitious socialite who willingly and eagerly maintained a decade-long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, even while he was incarcerated. The speaker suggests Kate's testimony against Ghislaine is suspect, especially since she only 'pointed the finger' after Epstein's death.
DOJ-OGR-00015392.jpg
This document is page 4 of 4 of a FedEx invoice dated November 29, 2002. It is a 'Reference Chart' listing various FedEx service codes, zone definitions, and charge codes. It contains no specific correspondence or transaction amounts but is marked 'CONFIDENTIAL' and bears Bates stamps (SDNY_GM_00340724 and DOJ-OGR-00015392), indicating it was produced as evidence in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial or related investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00015264.jpg
This document is a General Release form dated November 30, 2020, for the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (EVCP). A redacted claimant accepts a settlement offer of $5,000,000.00 in exchange for releasing the Epstein Estate, The 1953 Trust, and associated entities from all liability regarding claims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. The document serves as a legal waiver of future claims.
DOJ-OGR-00015205.jpg
This document is a student enrollment record from the Palm Beach school district, dated July 19, 2021, and marked as Defendant's Exhibit DH-2 in a legal case. It details the enrollment of a redacted 10th-grade student at ZWD - Survivors Charter School for the 2001-2002 school year. The student enrolled on October 12, 2001, and withdrew on March 7, 2002, to enter an adult education program without graduating.
DOJ-OGR-00002535.jpg
This document is an executive summary of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) in 2007-2008. It outlines the factual background, starting with the 2005 Palm Beach Police Department investigation, the subsequent state indictment, and the referral to federal authorities. The summary details how the federal investigation led to a controversial non-prosecution agreement (NPA) signed on September 24, 2007, and notes that the OPR also investigated whether prosecutors committed misconduct by failing to consult with or misleading victims.
DOJ-OGR-00002392.jpg
This document is page 15 of a 28-page court filing, specifically Document 14-3 in Case 1:29-cv-09333-RWS, filed on March 4, 2021. It appears to be a signature page for an order or ruling issued 'BY THE COURT', with a signature line for a United States District Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00002350.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases from various U.S. courts, including District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and cover a range of civil and criminal matters.
DOJ-OGR-00002350(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the larger document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and involve various individuals and corporate entities.
DOJ-OGR-00002317.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated January 25, 2021, submitted by the attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorneys argue that the indictment lacks the necessary specificity for Maxwell to prepare an adequate defense for Counts One through Four, violating her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. They request that the court either dismiss these counts or compel the government to provide a Bill of Particulars and further discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00002247.jpg
This page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues against granting bail to Ghislaine Maxwell, citing her lack of US employment ties, significant foreign connections, and flight risk. The text details her history of providing 'incomplete or erroneous' financial information to Pretrial Services, specifically noting a July 2020 incident where she underreported assets at $3.5 million and misrepresented her ownership status of a New Hampshire property. It references a report by the accounting firm Macalvins intended to clarify her finances.
DOJ-OGR-00002247(1).jpg
This document is page 15 of a court filing (Document 106) from December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text argues for continued detention, citing Maxwell's lack of employment ties to the US, significant ties abroad, and a pattern of providing incomplete financial information to Pretrial Services, specifically underreporting assets by omitting spousal assets and trust accounts in July 2020. It references a financial report prepared by the accounting firm Macalvins and disputes Maxwell's defense that her financial misrepresentations were due to lack of access to records while detained.
DOJ-OGR-00002246(1).jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's motion for release, focusing on her ties to the United States as a factor in determining flight risk. The court considers letters of support from friends, family, and her spouse, but finds them insufficient to alter its conclusion that she remains a flight risk. The court highlights a key contradiction: the defendant now emphasizes her spousal relationship to argue she has strong ties, despite having claimed she was getting divorced at the time of her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00002245(1).jpg
This is page 13 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The court is analyzing the defendant's flight risk, concluding that her French citizenship, potential to flee to Israel, and extraordinary financial resources justify continued detention. The judge argues that anticipatory extradition waivers are insufficient because the defendant could still frustrate or delay the extradition process.
DOJ-OGR-00002244.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal arguments concerning the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text cites various legal precedents, noting that while some defendants have offered such waivers, courts have often not ruled on their enforceability or have deemed them unenforceable, as in the Epstein case where it was called an "empty gesture." The document highlights the significant legal uncertainty surrounding whether a foreign country would enforce such a waiver, making it a contentious point in the defendant's case against extradition to the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00002244(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It contrasts different legal precedents, citing cases where such waivers were considered unenforceable or an 'empty gesture' (e.g., United States v. Epstein) against others where they were conditions of release, though their enforceability was not explicitly determined. The document highlights the legal ambiguity surrounding whether a foreign country, like France, would honor such a waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00002243.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 30, 2020, details the Court's analysis of a renewed bail motion for a defendant, identified as Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court remains concerned about her substantial international ties and multiple citizenships, particularly her French citizenship, as a significant flight risk. The document weighs the defendant's offer to waive extradition rights from France and the UK against conflicting evidence, including a letter from the French Ministry of Justice stating French law prohibits extraditing its nationals and the defendant's own experts using uncertain language.
DOJ-OGR-00002243(1).jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against the defendant's, Ghislaine Maxwell's, renewed motion for bail. The prosecution asserts that her substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships (including French), and connections abroad make her a significant flight risk. The document contends that her offer to waive extradition rights from France and the UK is legally contested, citing a letter from the French Ministry of Justice and the probabilistic language used by her own experts, which does not eliminate the risk of her successfully blocking extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00002240.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 30, 2020, analyzes a defendant's motion for bail. The court acknowledges that the defendant has met the 'limited' burden of producing evidence (regarding financial conditions and family ties) to counter the presumption of being a flight risk. However, citing legal precedents like United States v. Mercedes and Martir, the court asserts that this presumption does not disappear and must still be weighed, concluding that the new information does not alter its initial determination regarding release conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00002240(1).jpg
This legal document, page 8 of a court filing dated December 30, 2020, analyzes the legal standards for a defendant's motion for bail. The court acknowledges that the defendant has met the 'limited' burden to provide evidence against the presumption of being a flight risk, citing her financial conditions and family ties. However, citing precedents like *United States v. Mercedes* and *Martir*, the court maintains that the presumption of flight does not disappear and must still be given weight, concluding that the new information does not alter its initial determination.
DOJ-OGR-00002238.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), denying a renewed motion for bail. The text outlines the Defendant's proposals for release, including paid private security, waivers of extradition from the UK and France, and arguments regarding COVID-19 conditions in jail. Despite these arguments and new financial information, the Court concludes that no conditions can reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00002238(1).jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the Defendant's arguments for release from detention, citing new information such as family ties in the U.S., a detailed financial report, waivers of extradition from the UK and France, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these arguments, the document concludes with the Court's finding that no conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00002229(1).jpg
This legal document, dated December 17, 2020, and authored by David Perry QC, analyzes the legal framework for extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States, specifically concerning Ms Maxwell. It argues that none of the statutory bars to extradition apply to her case and highlights the rarity of the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition, citing the past case of Gary McKinnon as an example that is no longer applicable. The document notes that the purpose of the Extradition Act 2003 is to streamline and facilitate extradition, with most cases concluding within two years.
DOJ-OGR-00002228.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit 103-2) dated December 23, 2020, analyzing UK extradition law in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that if Maxwell were to flee the US to the UK, she would likely be denied bail and her arguments against extradition (oppression, human rights) would fail due to 'bad faith' and the serious nature of the charges. It also clarifies the limited powers of the UK Secretary of State to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002228(1).jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a court filing from December 23, 2020, argues against the availability of certain bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell. It posits that a finding of oppression is unlikely given she absconded from the United States, and that human rights claims under the ECHR are also improbable. The document further clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition is strictly limited by the Extradition Act 2003 and is not a matter of general discretion.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity