United States
LocationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Morgan
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Drago
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Dorvee
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Maslin
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Lopez
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mallah
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Caparros
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Dornau
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Robinson
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
DODGE & COX INCOME FD
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Esposito
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Buser
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jones
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Old Chief
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Noble
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
DiGregorio
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial defendant vs prosecution |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Abdullahu
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Walters
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Okwumabua
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Quinones
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Hamling
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Falter
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Gulf Security Partners
|
Military alliance cooperation |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00001206.jpg
This document is an addendum to a legal opinion concerning the potential extradition of Ghislaine Maxwell from England and Wales to the United States. It reaffirms the original opinion's conclusions that her extradition is highly likely, bail would almost certainly be denied, and she would be unable to successfully resist extradition based on the charges in a July 2020 indictment. The addendum also clarifies the relevance of a potential waiver of extradition in UK legal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00001204.jpg
A legal opinion filed on December 23, 2020, by French attorney William Julié regarding the extradition of Ghislaine Maxwell. Julié argues that under French law and the Extradition Treaty (referencing a past interpretation by Senators Durbin and Obama), there is no absolute rule against extraditing nationals and that the French government would likely execute an extradition decree against Maxwell. The document also cites the 2010 EU-US extradition agreement as further justification for cooperation.
DOJ-OGR-00001202.jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a U.S. government memorandum concerning a defendant's release. Julié critiques the U.S. government's reliance on a letter from the French Minister of Justice, arguing it misinterprets French extradition law by ignoring the supremacy of international treaties, such as the extradition treaty between the USA and France, over domestic statutes. The core argument is that France may indeed be able to extradite its own citizens under these treaties, contrary to the U.S. government's position.
DOJ-OGR-00001198.jpg
This document is page 9 (filed as page 3 of 15 in a specific docket) of a legal memorandum in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense argues that contrary to government claims, Maxwell could be extradited from France because international treaties supersede national legislation, and that she would likely face extradition and be denied bail if she fled to the UK, supported by expert opinions from Mr. Julié and David Perry. The text refutes the relevance of a 2006 French non-extradition case and asserts that Maxwell's waiver of extradition would be a significant factor in foreign courts.
DOJ-OGR-00001197.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense on December 28, 2020. It argues against the government's assertion that Maxwell is a flight risk, claiming her use of a trust and pseudonym to buy a home was for safety, not evasion. The defense also contends that Maxwell's waiver of extradition rights is significant and cites expert William Julié to counter claims that France would refuse to extradite her.
DOJ-OGR-00001193.jpg
This document is a defense filing arguing that the government has not met its burden in opposing bail for Ms. Maxwell. It asserts that her spouse and friends have come forward to support her bond, demonstrating strong ties to the U.S., contrary to the government's claims. It also addresses footnotes regarding the government's failure to scrutinize accusers and the defense's ongoing legal challenges to the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00001187.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (likely a reply brief in support of a bail motion) filed on December 23, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government's case is weak (relying on only three witnesses), that Maxwell has substantial ties to the US (including a spouse whose name is redacted), that she has disclosed all finances for bond, and that the COVID surge at the MDC justifies her release. It also refutes the claim that she is a flight risk or that extradition from France or the UK would be refused.
DOJ-OGR-00001184.jpg
This document is a formal statement from Philippe Jaeglé of the Office for the International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, explaining that under Article 3 of the 1996 Bilateral Extradition Treaty and French law, France refuses to extradite its nationals to the United States. It clarifies that while France extradites nationals within the EU due to political integration and shared human rights standards (European arrest warrant), it has never deviated from the non-extradition principle for countries outside the EU. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp and a court filing header dated December 18, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001173.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court's analysis distinguishing the current defendant's case from several cited legal precedents regarding pre-trial detention. The court contrasts cases where defendants were released (Khashoggi, Bodmer) with cases where they were detained (Boustani, Ho, Epstein), focusing on factors that justify detention such as flight risk, substantial financial resources, dual citizenship, and ties to foreign countries without extradition treaties like Brazil.
DOJ-OGR-00001164.jpg
This is page 19 (Document 100-2) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The US Government argues that the defendant poses a significant flight risk because waivers of extradition are legally unenforceable in France and the UK. The prosecution cites advice from the OIA and legal precedents to demonstrate that extradition is uncertain and lengthy, justifying continued detention pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001163.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is invalid. It cites two main points: first, the precedent of France refusing to extradite its own citizens, as seen in the case of Peterson, a dual US-French national; and second, the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires that any consent to extradition be evaluated by a judge in real-time with legal counsel present, rendering any prior 'anticipatory waiver' meaningless.
DOJ-OGR-00001162.jpg
This legal document argues against a defense submission by asserting that French law and practice systematically prohibit the extradition of French nationals to the United States. It refutes the 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. The document concludes that any anticipatory waiver of extradition by the defendant would be unenforceable in French courts.
DOJ-OGR-00001161.jpg
This legal document argues that if the defendant, a French citizen, flees to France, she cannot be extradited to the United States. This assertion is based on a confirmation from the French Ministry of Justice, which stated that France has an inflexible principle of not extraditing its citizens to the U.S. The document further supports this claim with legal precedent from the case *United States v. Cilins*, concluding that any extradition waiver signed in the U.S. would be unenforceable in France.
DOJ-OGR-00001159.jpg
This is page 14 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00001159) of a Government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed December 18, 2020. The prosecution argues against bail, citing the defendant's flight risk, wealth, and ability to frustrate extradition from France or the UK. A critical footnote reveals that in 2018, the defendant and her spouse established a trust account where they both falsely listed their marital status as 'single' on bank forms.
DOJ-OGR-00001158.jpg
This document is page 13 of a government filing opposing bail for a female defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on the case number). The prosecution argues she is a flight risk due to her three passports, foreign wealth, and lack of employment or children in the US. It highlights inconsistencies in her statements, noting she previously claimed to be divorcing her husband but is now using the marriage to argue for ties to the US, while simultaneously asking to live with a redacted third party rather than said husband.
DOJ-OGR-00001153.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Government's opposition) filed on December 18, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text argues against the defendant's 'Renewed Bail Application,' stating that the defense is reiterating arguments already rejected by the Court. The prosecution asserts the defendant remains a 'substantial actual risk of flight' and highlights the 'horrendous conduct' involving the sexual abuse of minors charged in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00001149.jpg
This document is page 4 (stamped page 7 of 36) of a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It details the Court's reasoning for denying bail and detaining Maxwell, citing her serious flight risk, lack of U.S. ties, French citizenship (non-extradition), and extraordinary financial resources. The Court also noted that Maxwell's financial disclosures to Pretrial Services were likely incomplete.
DOJ-OGR-00001148.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Document 100) from case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 28, 2020. It details the procedural history following the defendant's arrest on July 2, 2020, specifically focusing on the July 14, 2020 bail hearing where the defense argued for release based on family ties, offers of private security, and cooperation with the government following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest. The text includes transcripts of defense counsel offering to provide further financial verification and suretor information to satisfy the court's concerns regarding flight risk and financial transparency.
DOJ-OGR-00001131.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text cites an expert, Mr. Julié, who argues that France would not protect Maxwell from extradition to the U.S. if she fled there, citing her U.S. citizenship, waiver of rights, and diplomatic interests. A footnote notes that French authorities have broadened their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to include Maxwell, reducing her incentive to flee to France.
DOJ-OGR-00001129.jpg
This document is page 33 of a legal filing (dated Dec 14, 2020) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that Maxwell is not a flight risk because she has executed waivers of extradition and obtained expert reports (specifically from U.K. barrister David Perry) concluding she could not successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France. The text cites various legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) to support the validity of extradition waivers as conditions of release.
DOJ-OGR-00001128.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk due to her extreme recognizability and the constant media scrutiny she faces. To further assure the Court of her intent to face charges, she offers to sign irrevocable waivers of her right to contest extradition in both the United Kingdom and France. The filing cites the 1999 case 'United States v. Cirillo' as a legal precedent for using such waivers as a condition for release.
DOJ-OGR-00001127.jpg
This document is a page from a legal defense filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that Maxwell was not evading law enforcement but rather the press, evidenced by her use of a trackable cellphone. It further argues she is not a flight risk to France or the UK because she has irrevocably waived extradition rights and chose to remain in the US following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00001124.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, argues that she 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 legal counsel was in regular, documented contact with the government for months. The filing aims to counter the government's portrayal of her as a fugitive by demonstrating her intent to remain in the U.S. and face any potential charges.
DOJ-OGR-00001119.jpg
This page from a defense filing argues for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail, citing a 'Macalvins report' to refute Government claims that her finances are opaque. The defense states that Maxwell and her spouse have total assets of approximately $22.5 million, which they offer as the bond amount, and asserts she has properly filed all FBAR and tax documents. A footnote heavily redacts the name of a specific bank involved in her finances.
DOJ-OGR-00001116.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the financial support for Ms. Maxwell's bail application. It details several bonds being posted by friends and a security company, including a $3.5 million bond from one individual risking their entire assets and a $1 million bond from a security company. The document argues that these significant financial pledges from people who know her well, and who are risking their own livelihoods and reputations, serve as strong evidence that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity