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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Decision in the case of United States v. Watkins. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | The case of United States v. Davis, which stated that a statutory phrase should have a fixed mean... | N/A | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case United States v. Duncan, No. 18 CR 289, 2019 WL 2210663 is cited. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | The court case United States v. Gaudet, 933 F.3d 11, 15–16 (1st Cir. 2019) is cited as a preceden... | 1st Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Decision in the case of United States v. Boustani. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Court ruling | Ruling in the case of United States v. Eldred. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal ruling | Ruling in the case of United States v. Boustani. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Legal case | The date of the cited case, United States v. Raniere. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Legal proceeding | A court decision was made in the case of United States v. Raniere. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case of United States v. Raniere, which is cited as precedent. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Court decision | In United States v. Raniere, the court noted that since it had already held one detention hearing... | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-10-02 | Court ruling | In United States v. Hussain, the defendant was granted a $100,000 personal recognizance bond with... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2018-09-26 | Court ruling | Ruling in the case of United States v. Williams. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-08-09 | Legal case | The date of the United States v. Pierre-Louis case cited in the footnote. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-08-09 | Court decision | Decision in the case United States v. Pierre-Louis. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2018-04-10 | Court decision | Decision in the case United States v. Pizarro. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2018-04-10 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN). | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-02-04 | Legal case | United States v. Patrick Ho, where the defendant was ordered detained based on risk of flight, st... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-02-04 | Legal case | United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2018) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2018-01-31 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585 (WHP). | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | N/A | Revision of the US-South Korea trade agreement. | N/A | View |
| 2018-01-01 | N/A | South Korea is excluded from US steel tariffs in exchange for capping its steel exports. | N/A | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal case | Citation of United States v. Miller, 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018). | 1st Cir. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The case United States v. Guerrero, 910 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2018) was decided. | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00004624.jpg
This document is the signature page of a non-prosecution agreement, filed on May 25, 2021. In it, Jeffrey Epstein formally waives his Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury, agreeing instead to be charged by an Information filed by the U.S. Attorney. The agreement is to be signed by Epstein, his counsel Roy Black, U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, and Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00014612.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a charge or jury instruction from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It defines the federal crime of conspiracy by quoting States Code, Section 371, and explains the legal concept to the jury. The document specifies that Ms. Maxwell can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the intended crime was not completed and outlines the elements the government must prove for a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00014596.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically the judge's charge to the jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge explains the difference between conspiracy and substantive crimes and begins instructing the jury on Count Two, which involves enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity. The judge quotes the relevant federal statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422, as part of the instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00011730.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding a witness named 'Kate'. The text characterizes Kate as an ambitious former actress and model who maintained a decade-long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, including sending him emails and photos while he was incarcerated. The defense argues Kate was above the age of consent in all relevant jurisdictions (UK, NY, FL) and implies her testimony may be unreliable due to admitted drug use.
DOJ-OGR-00002773.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court is denying a third motion for bail, citing the Defendant's flight risk due to international ties, substantial financial resources, and experience evading detection. The Court also highlights a lack of candor regarding the Defendant's assets, noting discrepancies between information provided to Pretrial Services in July 2020 and the Court in December 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00020140.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020 (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), denying release/bail for the Defendant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court argues that the Defendant poses a significant flight risk due to her French citizenship, the difficulty of extradition (specifically mentioning Israel), her extraordinary financial resources, and her proven ability to avoid detection. The Court explicitly rejects the Defendant's argument that waiving extradition rights indicates an intent not to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00020133.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 28, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text details the Court's rejection of the Defendant's motion for release, despite her offers to pay for private security, waive extradition rights from the UK and France, and arguments regarding COVID-19 risks in confinement. The Court concludes that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00020126.jpg
This legal document, dated December 17, 2020, analyzes the extradition case of Ms. Maxwell from the United Kingdom to the United States. It argues that legal bars to extradition are unlikely to apply to her case, highlighting that the UK Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition is exceptionally rare and that the 2003 Extradition Act is designed to facilitate, not hinder, such proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00020115.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Document 102) outlines arguments by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team refuting the government's claim that she is a flight risk. The defense argues that her use of a trust and pseudonym to buy a home was for protection against harassment, not to hide, and emphasizes her willingness to waive extradition rights to France and the UK. It also addresses conflicting expert opinions regarding whether France would extradite her, contrasting expert William Julié's report with a general letter from the French Ministry of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00020111.jpg
This document is a page from a defense filing arguing for the release of Ms. Maxwell on bail. It asserts that the government has failed to justify continued detention, pointing to new evidence of Maxwell's strong ties to the U.S., specifically through her spouse and friends who have offered support, contradicting earlier government claims.
DOJ-OGR-00020108.jpg
This document is a preliminary statement from a legal filing arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell on bail. It outlines her proposed bail package, including financial transparency and sureties, while contending that the government is applying an unfair standard due to her association with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020105.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, dated December 23, 2020, likely related to a bail application. The arguments outlined challenge the government's case by highlighting its reliance on limited witness testimony, asserting Ms. Maxwell's strong ties to the U.S. (including her spouse), her full financial disclosure for a bond, and the low probability of her being a flight risk. The filing also leverages a recent COVID surge at the MDC facility as an additional reason for granting bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020092.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing for the continued detention of a 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 a demonstrated sophistication in hiding assets. The filing also refutes the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement, stating she has ample access to her legal counsel and discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
This page from a legal document analyzes several precedent cases to argue for or against the detention of a defendant pending trial. It distinguishes the current case from others like *Khashoggi* and *Bodmer* where defendants were released, and draws parallels to cases like *Boustani*, *Patrick Ho*, and *Epstein* where defendants were detained. The analysis focuses on factors such as flight risk, financial resources, ties to foreign countries, and the existence of extradition treaties.
DOJ-OGR-00020082.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition from France and the United Kingdom is unenforceable and does not mitigate her flight risk. It explains that UK law requires an independent judicial review of extradition and that the process is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to appeal, making it an ineffective guarantee. The document cites several court cases as precedent to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk and is a valid consideration for detaining a defendant pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020081.jpg
This document is page 18 of a government filing (Document 102) from June 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues against bail by highlighting flight risks, specifically noting that France does not extradite its own citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and arguing that any 'anticipatory waiver' of extradition the defendant might sign regarding the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable under UK law (referencing the Extradition Act of 2003 and U.S. v. Stanton). The prosecution asserts that such waivers are meaningless until a defendant is physically present before a British judge.
DOJ-OGR-00020080.jpg
This page from a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant poses a flight risk because French law strictly prohibits the extradition of French nationals. The prosecution refutes the defense expert's claim that there is no precedent for this by citing the 2006 case of Hans Peterson, a dual US-French citizen who committed murder in the US but could not be extradited from French territory (Guadeloupe) despite US efforts.
DOJ-OGR-00020079.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Document 100) from the US Government in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on June 18, 2020. The prosecution argues that Maxwell poses a flight risk because she is a French citizen, and French law strictly prohibits the extradition of its own nationals to the United States. The document references a letter from the French Ministry of Justice confirming this policy and notes that any extradition waiver signed by the defendant would be unenforceable in France.
DOJ-OGR-00020077.jpg
This page from a government filing (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant is a flight risk. It highlights her time hiding in New Hampshire, her foreign ties to the UK and France, and the difficulty of extradition. A footnote reveals that in 2018, despite being married, both the defendant and her spouse listed their status as 'single' on bank trust account forms, which the government cites as evidence of a lack of candor.
DOJ-OGR-00020076.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The prosecution asserts the defendant is a flight risk due to significant foreign ties, including citizenship in three countries, multiple passports, and foreign assets. The document argues her ties to the United States are weak, citing her lack of employment and dependents, and points to inconsistent statements she made about her marriage to undermine her claims of stability.
DOJ-OGR-00020071.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Government's opposition to a renewed bail application) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that the defense's new application reiterates previously rejected arguments regarding flight risk and ties to the US. It emphasizes that the nature of the charges, involving the sexual abuse of multiple minor victims, supports continued detention.
DOJ-OGR-00020068.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court filing (Document 102) from December 28, 2020, in the case US v. Maxwell. It details the Court's reasoning for denying bail, citing Ghislaine Maxwell as a 'substantial actual risk of flight.' The text highlights her 'significant financial resources,' her failure to provide a full financial accounting, and her 'demonstrated sophistication' in hiding both her assets and herself from the public and the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00020067.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 28, 2020, regarding the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details the Court's reasoning for denying bail, citing her as a 'serious flight risk' due to the nature of the charges involving minor victims, strong government evidence, and her substantial international ties. Specifically, the Court noted her French citizenship (and France's non-extradition policy), extraordinary financial resources, lack of candor regarding her finances to Pretrial Services, and lack of significant ties to the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00020049.jpg
A legal filing arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell is not a flight risk to France because French authorities would likely extradite her back to the U.S. expeditiously. It cites an opinion by Mr. Julié regarding French extradition law and notes that Maxwell has waived her extradition rights. A footnote reveals that French authorities have broadened their criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to include Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00020048.jpg
This legal document summarizes expert opinions regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's potential extradition. Mr. Perry, an expert on UK law, concludes that Maxwell is unlikely to successfully resist extradition to the United States or be granted bail. William Julié, an expert on French law, clarifies that, contrary to government representations, the extradition of a French national to the USA is legally permissible.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity