United States
LocationRelationship Network
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Modification of the Non-Prosecution Agreement | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of the Syrian situation, including the legitimacy of Mr. Assad, international response... | Global political context, U... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Clarification of provisions in paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement regarding the selecti... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Assignment of Independent Third-Party | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-prosecution agreement (NPA) intended for broad, complete resolution of matters, including Eps... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) entered into by the United States Attorney's Office, Southern Dis... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Agreement regarding Epstein's charges, sentencing, and victim representation. Includes terms for ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | War with Iran / U.S.-led attack | Iran | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation and execution of a plea agreement | Eleventh Circuit | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cold War | Global | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement execution | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein agrees to plea deal (NPA) for 18 months imprisonment. | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential Iranian nuclear targeting of US logistics hubs. | Middle East / Bahrain | View |
| N/A | N/A | Selection of attorney representative for victims | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Public protests and Mubarak's time of need | Cairo, Egypt | View |
| N/A | N/A | Suspension of federal Grand Jury investigation. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | US shipment of battery-operated TV sets to Pacific islands. | Pacific Ocean islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hypothetical conflict/coalition warfare between US and Iran | Middle East | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential U.S. attack on Iran | Iran | View |
| N/A | N/A | Suspension of federal Grand Jury investigation | Federal Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposed peace conference to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. | U.S. | View |
| N/A | N/A | Palestinian bid for full U.N. membership. | United Nations | View |
| N/A | N/A | United States' decision to pursue warmer ties with Tehran. | International | View |
| N/A | Legal case | United States v. Rodriguez, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ | N/A | View |
| N/A | Non-prosecution agreement | Epstein agreed to a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment on two charges, and in return, the ... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002227.jpg
This document is an Addendum Opinion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It analyzes English extradition law to support the argument that if Maxwell were to flee to the UK, she would almost certainly be denied bail there and her extradition back to the US would be a 'virtual foregone conclusion.' The opinion asserts that a waiver of extradition signed by Maxwell would be highly admissible and relevant in UK courts.
DOJ-OGR-00002227(1).jpg
This Addendum Opinion, filed on December 23, 2020, addresses matters of English extradition law concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. It reaffirms that it is highly unlikely Maxwell could successfully resist extradition to the United States for charges in a July 2020 indictment, and that bail would likely be refused if she had absconded from prior proceedings. The document also notes that Maxwell's waiver of extradition would be admissible but not compel consent, though it would be a relevant factor in contested proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00002223.jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a US government memorandum regarding a defendant's motion for release. Julié refutes the US government's interpretation of a letter from the French Minister of Justice, arguing that their analysis of French extradition law is incomplete. He asserts that under the French Constitution (Article 55) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 696), international treaties—such as the extradition treaty between the US and France—prevail over domestic law, meaning the key issue is the treaty's terms, not general French legislation.
DOJ-OGR-00002223(1).jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a US government memorandum concerning a defendant's release. Julié argues that the US government's reliance on a letter from the French Minister of Justice is misplaced, as it selectively quotes French law while ignoring the supremacy of international extradition treaties under the French Constitution. The core argument is that the extradition treaty between the USA and France should govern the case, not the specific article of the French criminal code cited by the Minister.
DOJ-OGR-00002219.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 103) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 23, 2020. The text argues against the government's concerns regarding Maxwell's flight risk, utilizing expert opinions from Mr. Julié (French law) and David Perry (UK law) to assert that extradition from France or the UK would be legally permissible and likely, and that bail in the UK would be denied. It specifically refutes the relevance of a 2006 precedent where France refused extradition, arguing that international treaties prevail over French national legislation.
DOJ-OGR-00002219(1).jpg
This legal document argues against the government's position on the extradition of Ms. Maxwell. It presents expert opinions from Mr. Julié on French law and David Perry on UK law to contend that extradition from France is permissible under the existing treaty and that resisting extradition or obtaining bail in the UK would be highly unlikely. The document refutes the government's reliance on a 2006 case as precedent and clarifies the limited discretion of the Secretary of State to deny extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00002214.jpg
This document is a defense reply filed on December 23, 2020, in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail application. The defense argues that Maxwell has strong ties to the U.S., including a spouse who has come forward as a co-signor and friends willing to pledge assets, contradicting the government's claim that she is a flight risk. The filing addresses a contradiction regarding her marital status, acknowledging she previously told Pretrial Services she was divorcing, while her spouse now asserts a committed four-year relationship.
DOJ-OGR-00002214(1).jpg
This document is a defense reply filed on December 23, 2020, in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail application. The defense argues that Maxwell has strong ties to the U.S., including a spouse who has come forward as a co-signor and friends willing to pledge assets, contradicting the government's claim that she is a flight risk. The filing addresses a contradiction regarding her marital status, acknowledging she previously told Pretrial Services she was divorcing, while her spouse now asserts a committed four-year relationship.
DOJ-OGR-00002208.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 103) dated December 23, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The filing argues for Maxwell's release on bail, citing her ties to the U.S. (including a redacted spouse), the pledging of all assets, the weakness of the government's case relying on only three witnesses, and health risks due to a COVID surge at the MDC detention center.
DOJ-OGR-00002208(1).jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 103) in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 23, 2020. The filing outlines arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell for bail, countering the government's case by highlighting her substantial ties to the U.S. (including her spouse), her financial disclosures, and the unlikelihood of extradition refusal from France or the UK, while also citing a COVID surge at MDC as further justification.
DOJ-OGR-00002203.jpg
This document is an exhibit filed on December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It is a formal statement from Philippe Jaeglé of the French Office for International Mutual Assistance, clarifying that under the 1996 Bilateral Extradition Treaty and French law, France systematically refuses to extradite its own nationals to the United States. The text distinguishes this policy from intra-EU extradition rules.
DOJ-OGR-00002193.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing for the continued detention of the defendant, asserting she is an extreme flight risk. The Government cites her foreign citizenship in a non-extraditing country, substantial international ties, financial resources, and the seriousness of the charges involving minor victims. The filing also refutes the defense's complaints about the conditions of confinement, stating the defendant has ample time and access to communicate with her counsel and review discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00002192.jpg
This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues against the defendant's release by distinguishing her case from precedents where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and aligning it with cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho, and a 2001 case United States v. Epstein). The 'United States v. Epstein' cited here refers to a 2001 case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania involving a defendant with German/Brazilian dual citizenship, used here as legal precedent for denying bail based on lack of extradition treaties.
DOJ-OGR-00002192(1).jpg
This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text presents a legal argument supporting the detention of the defendant by distinguishing her case from previous instances where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and comparing her to cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho). Notably, it cites a 2001 case, 'United States v. Epstein,' as precedent for denying bail based on dual citizenship and lack of extradition treaties; however, this 2001 citation likely refers to a different defendant named Epstein (in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) rather than Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002183.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition rights from France and the United Kingdom is not a sufficient guarantee against flight risk. It details how the extradition process in the UK is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to judicial and executive discretion, meaning the defendant could still challenge it. The document concludes by citing legal precedent that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk, thus weighing in favor of detaining the defendant pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002183(1).jpg
This is page 22 of a legal filing (Document 100) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 18, 2020. The text argues that the defendant represents a significant flight risk because extradition from the UK or France is legally complex, lengthy, and not guaranteed, even if the defendant currently waives her rights to challenge it. The prosecution cites case law (Namer, Cilins, Abdullahu) to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition supports continued detention pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002182.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable. It supports this claim by referencing France's strict policy against extraditing its own citizens to the U.S. and by citing the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires a judge to evaluate any such waiver in person with the defendant represented by counsel, rendering anticipatory waivers meaningless.
DOJ-OGR-00002182(1).jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against the defendant's bail release by highlighting the risk of non-extradition. The Government asserts that France does not extradite its citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and that any anticipatory waiver of extradition to the UK provided by the defendant is unenforceable under the UK Extradition Act of 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002181.jpg
This legal document argues that France's laws and practices prevent the extradition of its nationals, even if they hold dual citizenship with the United States. It refutes a defense expert's claim of no precedent by citing the 2006 case of Hans Peterson, a dual U.S.-French citizen who confessed to murder in the U.S. but was shielded from U.S. law enforcement by France after turning himself in to French authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00002181(1).jpg
This document is page 20 of a government filing (Document 100) in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 18, 2020. The text argues that the defendant (Maxwell) represents a flight risk because French law strictly prohibits the extradition of its nationals, even if they hold dual citizenship with the US. The prosecution cites the 2006 case of Hans Peterson as a precedent where France refused to extradite a dual citizen who confessed to murder in the US.
DOJ-OGR-00002180.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 18, 2020, argues that an unnamed defendant, who is a French citizen, would be completely protected from extradition to the United States if she were to flee to France. The argument is supported by direct communication from the French Ministry of Justice, which confirmed France's inflexible principle of not extraditing its citizens outside the European Union, and is further bolstered by a legal precedent from the 2013 case, United States v. Cilins.
DOJ-OGR-00002180(1).jpg
This page from a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant poses a significant flight risk because she is a French citizen. The document details that the US Government confirmed with the French Ministry of Justice that France will not extradite its nationals to the US, rendering any 'extradition waiver' signed by the defendant unenforceable if she flees to France.
DOJ-OGR-00002179.jpg
This legal document argues that pre-release waivers of extradition are unenforceable and meaningless because any defendant who flees will inevitably contest the waiver's validity. The author cites numerous court cases, including United States v. Epstein, to support the claim that such waivers are merely an "empty gesture." The document also refutes the defense's counterarguments by distinguishing the specific factual circumstances of the cases they rely upon.
DOJ-OGR-00002178.jpg
This page from a government filing (opposition to bail) argues that the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) is a flight risk. It highlights that her marriage is not a sufficient tie to the US, noting she lived alone while hiding in New Hampshire and that she and her spouse listed themselves as 'single' on bank trust account forms in 2018. The document also dismisses the defense's offer to waive extradition rights, particularly noting that France generally does not extradite its own nationals.
DOJ-OGR-00002177.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is a flight risk. The argument is based on her significant foreign ties, including citizenship in three countries, foreign property, and bank accounts, as well as her lack of strong ties to the U.S. and inconsistent statements made to Pretrial Services regarding her marital status.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity