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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Return to Afghanistan to oust Taliban regime | Afghanistan | View |
| N/A | Extradition proceedings | Proceedings in England and Wales in relation to US extradition requests for Ghislaine Maxwell. | England and Wales | View |
| N/A | N/A | Syrian civil uprising and potential use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime | Syria | View |
| N/A | N/A | U.S. involvement in Libya | Libya | View |
| N/A | N/A | Diplomatic crisis involving Israel, Turkey, and the U.S. | International | View |
| N/A | N/A | War with Iran | Iran | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential military campaign against Iran | Iran | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposed joint intelligence estimate session | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential conflict with Iran | Middle East / Global | View |
| N/A | N/A | Signing of an agreement where Epstein acknowledges conditions, waives certain rights, and consent... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | United States subjected South Korea to steel and aluminum tariffs. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Intensification of the trade war between the United States and China. | N/A | View |
| 2025-12-23 | N/A | China hit U.S. with $60 bn worth of tariffs | Global/Trade | View |
| 2025-11-19 | N/A | North Korea's mission to the UN accused the United States of being hell-bent on hostile acts. | United Nations | View |
| 2025-11-19 | N/A | North Korea’s mission to the UN accused the US of being 'hell-bent' on hostile acts. | United Nations | View |
| 2025-11-17 | N/A | U.S. slapped $200 bn worth of tariffs on China | Global/Economic | View |
| 2024-11-25 | N/A | Rehearing denied for United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256 (2d Cir. 2024). | Second Circuit | View |
| 2024-09-17 | N/A | Judgment entered for United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256 (2d Cir. 2024). | Second Circuit | View |
| 2024-01-01 | N/A | United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256 (2d Cir. 2024) case cited. | Second Circuit | View |
| 2024-01-01 | Legal decision | Decision in the case United States v. Johnson, 93 F.4th 605 (2024). | N/A | View |
| 2024-01-01 | N/A | U.S. v. Maxwell Decision | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
| 2023-03-12 | Court argument | Argument date for the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Docket No. 22-1426. | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2023-02-07 | N/A | Legal case: United States v. Amani Investments, No. 2:23-cr-00014-JAM, ECF No. 8 | E.D. Cal. | View |
| 2023-01-01 | Legal case | Citation of United States v. Montague, 67 F.4th 520 (2d Cir. 2023). | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2023-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Court case: United States v. Nieves | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020047.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell by citing several past U.S. court cases where defendants waived extradition rights to demonstrate they were not a flight risk. It then introduces expert reports, specifically one from U.K. barrister David Perry, which conclude it is highly unlikely Ms. Maxwell could successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France back to the United States, further supporting the argument that she is not a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020046.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. The argument centers on her high public profile, which would make fleeing difficult, and her willingness to sign irrevocable waivers of extradition for both the United Kingdom and France. The document cites the case of United States v. Cirillo as a precedent for using such waivers as a condition for release.
DOJ-OGR-00020045.jpg
This document is page 25 of a defense filing arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that Maxwell was not evading arrest but rather avoiding the press, evidenced by the government's ability to easily track her phone. It further argues she is not a flight risk to the UK or France, noting she waived extradition rights and remained in the US following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00020042.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell was not a flight risk prior to her arrest. It asserts that she intentionally moved to New Hampshire to be within driving distance of New York prosecutors and that her defense counsel was in regular communication with the government for months. The filing aims to counter the government's portrayal of her as a fugitive who was hiding and changing locations.
DOJ-OGR-00020037.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (Defense Bail Submission) dated December 8, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. It cites a 'Macalvins report' to refute government claims that Maxwell's finances are opaque, stating that she and her spouse have disclosed all assets, which total approximately $22.5 million—the exact amount proposed for the bond. A footnote contains redactions regarding the name of a specific bank involved in her finances.
DOJ-OGR-00020034.jpg
This legal document outlines the financial assurances provided for Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application. It details multiple bonds pledged by various unnamed sureties, including one for $3.5 million representing nearly all of that person's assets, and an unprecedented $1 million bond from a security company. The document argues that these significant financial risks, taken by family, friends, and a business associate with a long-standing relationship, demonstrate a strong belief that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020022.jpg
This document outlines a proposed $28.5 million bail package for Ghislaine Maxwell filed on December 14, 2020. The package includes a $22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by Maxwell and her spouse, secured by all their U.S. assets, and $5 million in additional bonds co-signed by friends and family (whose names are redacted). It also details a unique $1 million bond posted by a private security company intended to monitor her home confinement.
DOJ-OGR-00019959.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on April 1, 2021, concerning a defendant's bail. A government representative, Ms. Moe, argues that the defendant is a significant flight risk due to possessing multiple passports, large sums of money, and international connections, and should therefore be detained pending trial. The judge clarifies with Ms. Moe that the government's sole basis for requesting detention is the risk of flight, not any danger the defendant poses to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00005532.jpg
This document is Page 2 of 7 of the controversial Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (headed by R. Alexander Acosta). It outlines that federal prosecution will be deferred in favor of state prosecution if Epstein abides by specific conditions. Crucially, the final paragraph grants broad immunity, stating that after fulfilling terms, no federal prosecution will occur for offenses investigated by the FBI or the Federal Grand Jury.
DOJ-OGR-00005531.jpg
This document is the first page of a Non-Prosecution Agreement regarding Jeffrey Epstein, filed on September 25, 2017. It outlines the basis for the agreement, citing investigations by both Florida state authorities (Palm Beach Police, State Attorney's Office) and federal agencies (U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI). The investigations covered state charges of solicitation of prostitution and federal offenses related to conspiring to entice minors into prostitution between approximately 2001 and September 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00005371.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing a proposed jury questionnaire. It poses questions to potential jurors about their impartiality, ability to follow rules regarding media, and any hardships that might prevent them from serving in a trial expected to last at least six weeks. The document also includes comments detailing a legal dispute between the Government and the Defendant over whether these specific questions are necessary.
DOJ-OGR-00005368.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 22, 2021. It contains a series of voir dire questions for potential jurors, designed to uncover biases related to past experiences with crime, legal disputes with government entities like the U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, or NYPD, and preconceived notions about law enforcement witnesses. The document also informs jurors that they will hear testimony about evidence obtained from searches that the Court has deemed legal.
DOJ-OGR-00005361.jpg
This document is Page 4 of a court filing (Document 367-1) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 22, 2021. It outlines proposed 'Voir Dire' (jury selection) questions focused on determining if potential jurors have been biased by pretrial publicity regarding Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes sidebar annotations showing a legal dispute where the Government objects to specific questions as repetitive or inappropriate, while the Defense argues they are necessary to ensure an impartial jury, citing case law such as *United States v. Tsarnaev*.
DOJ-OGR-00005329.jpg
This document is page 7 of a juror questionnaire for a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 22, 2021. It questions potential jurors on their decision-making styles and views on wealth, while also outlining the trial schedule from November 16 to December 24, 2021. The document includes several objections from the Government, which argues that certain questions are too vague to be used for a for-cause challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00002670.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 144) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. It presents a legal argument regarding the Statute of Limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283). The text argues that Counts One and Two (under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a)) do not specifically require the victim to be a child or involve physical abuse/kidnapping, and therefore should not be subject to the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283.
DOJ-OGR-00002667.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 4, 2021, which argues for a specific interpretation of the statutory phrase "offense involving." It cites several court precedents, including cases like Kawashima v. Holder and United States v. Morgan, to support the position that this phrase requires looking at the essential elements of the crime itself, not merely the surrounding circumstances. The D.C. Circuit's analysis of a venue statute is used as a key example to illustrate that for an offense to 'involve' an activity like interstate transportation, that activity must be a formal element of the offense.
DOJ-OGR-00002618.jpg
This document is page 6 of a 7-page legal agreement, filed on February 4, 2008, between Epstein and the United States. In this section, Epstein formally waives his constitutional rights to a speedy trial (Sixth Amendment) and to an indictment by a grand jury (Fifth Amendment). This waiver is a condition for the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida to defer his prosecution, with the understanding that any breach of the agreement by Epstein would allow the government to prosecute him for any federal offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00020311.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the defense counsel for Ms. Maxwell, arguing for a continuance (postponement) of her trial scheduled for July 12, 2021. The defense claims that the challenges of preparing for the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the need to review voluminous discovery and investigate new allegations, make it impossible to be ready by the scheduled date. The filing refutes the government's assertion of trial readiness and details the extensive work still required for an adequate defense.
DOJ-OGR-00005870.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing, discusses the challenges in legally defining and prosecuting sexual grooming. It examines various legal approaches in the United States, United Kingdom, Wales, and New Zealand, highlighting the difficulties in establishing a clear, measurable definition of grooming behavior. The text cites several academic sources and specific legal cases to illustrate the varied and often limited nature of laws designed to prevent this form of abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00005833.jpg
This legal document is a court filing, page 50 of 84, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the defense's argument to dismiss allegations concerning "Minor Victim-3," claiming the defendant's conduct with her was lawful in the United Kingdom and that she was an adult when she was later abused by Epstein in the U.S. The defense contends the government mistakenly charged the defendant, believing Minor Victim-3 was a minor at the time of the alleged sex acts with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005771.jpg
This legal document, page 6 of a court filing from October 29, 2021, argues against the government's use of the term "victim" to refer to accusers in a trial. It cites numerous legal precedents from various state and federal courts to support the position that such language is improper and prejudicial, especially when the commission of a crime is in dispute. The document concludes by emphasizing the special role of a prosecutor to act impartially and seek justice, rather than simply to secure a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00005769.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that accusers in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial should not be referred to as "victims" or "minor victims" to protect the presumption of innocence. The defense contends that using such terms implies a crime has definitely occurred, which biases the jury before a verdict is reached.
DOJ-OGR-00005749.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists legal precedents, including numerous 'United States v.' cases from various circuit courts, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, and amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The table indicates the page numbers within the parent document where each authority is cited.
DOJ-OGR-00005742.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, dated October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The defense argues that a photographic identification of Ms. Maxwell conducted on June 23, 2021, was suggestive and tainted, and therefore should be suppressed by the Court. The argument cites several U.S. Supreme Court cases to support the claim that the procedure violated the defendant's right to due process.
DOJ-OGR-00002854.jpg
This page from a legal filing outlines conspiracy charges against Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein involving the enticement of minors for sexual activity in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. It specifically details 'Overt Acts' committed between 1994 and 1997 involving a 'Minor Victim-1' in New York and Florida.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity