| 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 |
This legal document argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is not a flight risk and should be granted release. It asserts that despite the government's claim of her 'frequent international travel', she has not left the United States since Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and subsequent death in August 2019. The document highlights that she remained in the country and maintained contact with prosecutors even as media scrutiny and the risk of her own prosecution intensified, actions which it claims weigh heavily in favor of her release.
This is page 10 of a legal filing from July 10, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues for release or specific detention conditions based on the high risk of COVID-19 in prisons, citing statistics and prior court rulings. It specifically notes that Maxwell was transferred to the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) by the BOP on July 6, 2020.
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense argues that she is not a danger to the community, cites the health risks of COVID-19 in prison, and claims she is not a flight risk due to her strong ties to the U.S. (citizenship, 30-year residency, family in NY) and her history of cooperation through counsel since Epstein's arrest.
This document is page 2 (labeled page 6 of 26 in the filing) of a legal defense filing arguing against the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines her background, emphasizing her US citizenship, long-term residency, and strong family ties to counter the government's argument that she is a flight risk. It also summarizes the government's position regarding her multiple citizenships and financial means, while refuting the claim that she was 'hiding' from law enforcement.
This document is page 5 of a Preliminary Statement filed on July 10, 2020, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team. It serves as a Memorandum in Opposition to the government's request for detention. The text argues that Maxwell is being unfairly conflated with Jeffrey Epstein, despite having no contact with him for over a decade, and asserts she is not a flight risk as she has lived in the US since 1991 and remained in the country following Epstein's 2019 arrest.
This legal document argues that 'the defendant' presents a clear risk of flight due to international connections, significant financial means, and a transient lifestyle. The defendant has been in hiding since an indictment against Epstein was unsealed in July 2019, making efforts to avoid detection, including an all-cash property purchase in December 2019 through an anonymized LLC. The document concludes that home confinement with electronic monitoring would be inadequate to prevent the defendant from fleeing.
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the detention of a defendant by highlighting her characteristics as a significant flight risk. The prosecution points to the defendant's extensive international ties, including being born in France, raised in the United Kingdom, and holding citizenship and passports for the US, UK, and France. Her frequent international travel, including at least fifteen flights in the last three years, and her financial means are presented as evidence supporting the argument that she could easily flee and live abroad.
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770) summarizes Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The Judge cited Maxwell's 'substantial international ties,' 'extraordinary financial resources,' lack of US ties, and 'demonstrated sophistication' in hiding assets as reasons she poses a significant flight risk. Additionally, the Judge rejected arguments regarding the difficulty of preparing a defense while incarcerated, though mandated that the Government ensure adequate attorney-client communication.
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim regarding the confinement conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. The text alleges severe mistreatment by prison staff, including physical abuse, withholding of food, destruction of legal documents, and excessive surveillance (including filming her showers). It also argues against flight risk allegations by citing monitored calls that demonstrate Maxwell's strong ties to the United States and desire to clear her name.
This document is page 10 of a legal filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 12, 2021. It details Judge Nathan's findings that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her extraordinary financial resources, multiple foreign citizenships, and lack of employment. The text notes that despite letters of support and offers to waive extradition rights, the court found the risk of flight fundamentally unchanged and the case against her strong.
This legal document details Judge Nathan's reasoning for denying bail to Maxwell. The judge found that the government had proven Maxwell is a substantial flight risk, citing her failure to provide her whereabouts, her significant and opaque financial resources, and her demonstrated sophistication in hiding herself and her assets. Consequently, Judge Nathan concluded that even the most restrictive release conditions would be insufficient to ensure her appearance in court.
This legal document, page 6 of a filing from April 12, 2021, summarizes Judge Nathan's findings that defendant Ms. Maxwell is a significant flight risk. The judge's determination is based on the strength of the government's evidence, Maxwell's substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships (including French), significant financial resources, and a lack of strong ties to the United States.
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the legal uncertainty surrounding the timing of nationality assessment for a defendant's extradition between the United States and France. It contrasts the government's position that nationality is determined at the time of the offense with the defendant's expert view that it's at the time of the extradition request. The document highlights that conflicting interpretations of the U.S.-France Extradition Treaty and French law create ambiguity that could frustrate or bar the extradition.
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated March 22, 2021, discusses the legal standard for a defendant's third motion for release on bail. The central issue is whether the court has jurisdiction to decide the motion while the defendant's separate bail appeal is pending, with the document citing case law and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to outline the court's authority in such a situation.
This is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated March 23, 2021, arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell on bail. The text argues that Maxwell's offer to renounce her French and British citizenship negates the flight risk concerns regarding extradition protection in France. It cites a Mr. Julié to interpret French Article 696-4, asserting that one who loses French nationality is not protected from extradition.
This document is a legal filing by the government arguing against a defendant's request for bail. The government contends that the defendant's offer to renounce her foreign citizenships in France and the United Kingdom is not a reliable guarantee against her fleeing the country, as the renunciation could be legally challenged later and does not prevent flight to a third country without an extradition treaty. The filing cites precedent from a similar case (United States v. Cohen) to argue that such offers should be given little weight and that the court's prior decision to detain the defendant should stand.
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (dated Dec 28, 2020) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text outlines proposed conditions including home detention, renunciation of foreign citizenship, and asset monitoring by a retired judge and former US Attorney. It compares her situation to the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, noting that he was granted bail despite being a foreign citizen arrested while attempting to leave the country on serious sexual assault charges, whereas Maxwell faces 26-year-old claims.
This document is the introduction to Ghislaine Maxwell's memorandum supporting her third motion for bail, filed on February 23, 2021. In it, she proposes two new conditions to secure her release: renouncing her French and British citizenships to prevent extradition issues, and placing her and her spouse's assets into a monitored account overseen by a retired federal judge. She argues these measures address the Court's previous concerns about flight risk and extradition.
This document is page 14 of a court order regarding a bail motion for a Defendant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell). The text analyzes the Defendant's flight risk in relation to her family ties, specifically discussing a letter of support from her spouse whose identity was initially withheld. The Court notes that while the spouse describes a 'quiet family life,' the Defendant was not living with him at the time of arrest, claimed to be getting divorced, and does not propose living with him if released, which undermines her argument that the marriage prevents flight.
This legal document is a page from a court filing that discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition, likely in the context of Ghislaine Maxwell's case. The author argues that the defendant has not provided cases where such waivers are enforceable and cites several past court decisions (e.g., Epstein, Morrison, Stroh) where courts have deemed such waivers unenforceable, invalid until a formal request is made, or an 'empty gesture'. The document contrasts these with cases cited by the defense (e.g., Cirillo, Salvagno) where waivers were considered but were not the central factor in the court's reasoning.
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a judicial opinion, concerning a bail motion for a defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court reaffirms its conclusion that the defendant is a flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships (including French), and connections abroad. The document analyzes the defendant's offer to waive extradition rights from France and the UK, noting that the legal weight of such waivers is contested, particularly in light of a letter from the French Ministry of Justice stating that French law "absolutely prohibits" the extradition of its nationals.
This page is from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text discusses the legal standards for bail and detention, specifically addressing 'flight risk' and the burden of production. While the court acknowledges the defendant met a limited burden regarding family ties and finances, section B explicitly states that 'The new information does not alter the Court’s initial determination,' implying a denial of the renewed motion for bail based on factors including the nature of the offense (involving a minor victim).
This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details the Court's rejection of the Defendant's arguments for release on bail, despite her offer to pay for private security guards, her claims of family ties in the US, and her offer to waive extradition rights from the UK and France. The Court concludes that no conditions can reasonably assure her appearance, dismissing arguments regarding COVID-19 prison conditions.
This document is the final page of a legal opinion written by David Perry QC of 6KBW College Hill, dated December 17, 2020. It analyzes UK extradition law, specifically concluding that no bars to extradition (such as asylum or national security) apply to Ms. Maxwell. It also discusses the rarity of the Secretary of State refusing extradition (citing the Gary McKinnon case) and notes that contested extradition cases typically conclude within two years.
This legal document analyzes the potential bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell from the UK to the US. It argues that bars related to oppression or human rights (Article 8 of the ECHR) are unlikely to be available to her, especially given that she absconded from the United States. The document also clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003 is not discretionary but is limited to specific statutory grounds.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity