the defendant
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
17
Very Strong
|
24 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
65 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
13
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Business associate |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror defendant |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MDC staff
|
Custodial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Abuser victim |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirator alleged |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Financial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Abuser victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
location
France
|
Citizenship |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Minor Victims-1 through -4 | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Illegal sexual abuse | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Payment of criminal monetary penalties within 30 (or 60) days after release from imprisonment, ba... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jane's testimony regarding sexual abuse | New Mexico (abuse location) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual Abuse | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant living in isolation and hiding assets | Unknown hiding location | View |
| N/A | N/A | Period during which the defendant and Epstein committed crimes together. | Epstein's properties | View |
| N/A | N/A | Attendance at Arts Camp | Arts Camp | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flights on private planes with minors | Epstein's private planes | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search of the New York Residence. | New York Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Limited Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial completion | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flight to New Mexico | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | N/A | Post-trial allegation of juror bias | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant's evasion of detection leading up to arrest. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massages taking place in Epstein's bedroom. | Epstein's Bedroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant's Quarantine | MDC | View |
| N/A | N/A | Motion for a New Trial | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Grooming and sex acts involving Minor Victim-3 | London | View |
| N/A | N/A | Evasion of detection/press | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition where alleged perjury occurred. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Legal Ruling | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Arrest of Defendant | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Anticipated trial where evidence regarding victims and terms like 'rape' will be used. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing ruling where the judge determines Virginia Roberts and Melissa are victims for... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021543.jpg
This document is Page 19 of a court ruling filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's request for pre-hearing discovery, labeling it a 'fishing expedition,' and rules that Juror 50 will be provided a copy of his completed jury questionnaire. The Court also orders that the questionnaire be docketed (unsealed), citing the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
DOJ-OGR-00021533.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court order (Document 620) filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rules that while a hearing is warranted regarding Juror 50's potential failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse, the Defendant has not justified an inquiry into Juror 50's social media usage. The Judge notes that Juror 50's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps during jury selection do not implicate the 'McDonough' standard for juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021527.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing post-trial motions regarding 'Juror 50'. It discusses the juror's media interviews where he admitted to being a sexual abuse victim despite checking 'no' on his questionnaire, prompting the Defendant to file for a new trial on January 19, 2022. The document also details a phone call on January 5, 2022, where Juror 50 contacted the Jury Department seeking guidance and access to his questionnaire, which was denied.
DOJ-OGR-00021145.jpg
This document is a page from a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. It argues 'Procedural Errors' regarding the sentencing of a defendant (identified by the sentencing date of June 28, 2022, as likely Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically claiming the District Court miscalculated sentencing guidelines and adhered to a pre-determined 240-month sentence despite errors in the calculation range. It references the Presentence Report (PSR) and the 'SH' (Sentencing Hearing).
DOJ-OGR-00019562.jpg
This is the final page of a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, dated September 2, 2020. The order, signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan in New York, states that the Defendant is permitted to make unsealing applications to the relevant courts.
DOJ-OGR-00019561.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 2, 2020, details a procedural history where the U.S. Government, in February 2019, successfully modified a civil protective order in one court (Court-1) to obtain materials for a criminal grand jury investigation. The defendant in the criminal case later learned of this through discovery. The current court is now permitting the defendant to provide information under seal to the relevant courts (Court-1 and Court-2) so they can make their own determinations about the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00019555.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated August 21, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text presents legal arguments supporting the continued sealing of documents related to grand jury proceedings and ex parte applications, citing various legal precedents regarding the First Amendment right of access versus the necessity of grand jury secrecy. A footnote mentions an April 2019 order that allows for limited exceptions to these sealing orders for discovery purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00019553.jpg
This is page 5 of a legal letter filed on August 21, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government, represented by Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and AUSAs Comey, Moe, and Pomerantz, argues that the defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in separate Civil Cases should be denied. The Government asserts this is an attempt to bypass protective orders and falsely accuse the Government and an unnamed 'Recipient' of malfeasance.
DOJ-OGR-00019551.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a letter from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 21, 2020, arguing against modifying a protective order. The Government asserts that the defendant (implied Ghislaine Maxwell) should not be allowed to use materials from criminal discovery in her civil cases, citing witness privacy and an active, ongoing grand jury investigation into co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein. The text emphasizes that defense counsel represents the defendant in both criminal and civil matters and warns against 'cherry-picking' confidential materials to defend against abuse accusations.
DOJ-OGR-00019542.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-gp-00330-AJN) dated July 30, 2020, that establishes rules for handling "Highly Confidential Information." It defines this information as including nude or sexualized depictions, outlines the process for the Government to designate it, and details the procedure for Defense Counsel to challenge such designations with the Court. The document strictly limits the use of this information to the defense of the current criminal action.
DOJ-OGR-00019526.jpg
This is page 5 of a Court Order (Protective Order) filed on July 28, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines strict protocols for handling Discovery materials, specifically prohibiting the Defense team and Potential Defense Witnesses from publicly disclosing the identities of victims or witnesses who have not already spoken publicly. It mandates that any court filings containing such identities must be filed under seal unless authorized by the Government or the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00019525.jpg
This document is page 4 of a Protective Order from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 28, 2020. It establishes strict rules for the handling of discovery materials by the defendant, her counsel, and the entire defense team. The order mandates encryption for disseminated discovery and explicitly prohibits all parties, including the Government, from posting any discovery information on the internet, social media, or any other public medium.
DOJ-OGR-00019516.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 32) dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government argues against the defendant's request to publicly name individuals who have identified themselves as victims of Epstein or the defendant, citing the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and legal precedents (Paris, Corley, Kelly) regarding privacy and safety. The Government advocates for a protective order that requires the use of pseudonyms (e.g., 'Victim-1') in public filings while allowing the defense to use names in sealed filings and internal investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00019512.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court order (Document 292) filed on July 27, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It outlines strict protocols for handling confidential discovery materials, mandating that the Defendant may only review certain materials in the presence of counsel and cannot possess copies. It also prohibits public filing of confidential information without authorization and mandates the return or destruction of discovery materials at the conclusion of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019507.jpg
This legal document, part of a court order filed on July 27, 2020, strictly prohibits the defense team (including the Defendant, counsel, staff, and experts) from publicly disclosing the identities of any victims or witnesses referenced in the case's discovery materials. An exception is made for referencing individuals who have already spoken on the public record concerning Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. The order also forbids filing the identities of non-public victims or witnesses unless authorized in writing by the Government or by a court order.
DOJ-OGR-00019442.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's request to modify a protective order to disclose documents to judicial officers in other civil proceedings, characterizing her arguments as 'vague, speculative, and conclusory.' The text references factual information the Defendant wished to disclose, specifically regarding grand jury subpoenas issued to an unnamed entity ('Recipient') during the Government's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators.
DOJ-OGR-00019336.jpg
This document is page 3 of a letter from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced as 'the defendant'). The Government argues against modifying a protective order, stating that the defendant should not be allowed to use materials from criminal discovery in her various civil cases, as this would violate witness privacy and jeopardize an 'active' ongoing grand jury investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators. The text highlights that the same defense counsel represents the defendant in both civil and criminal matters, raising concerns about the inappropriate use of confidential discovery materials to defend against abuse accusations by civil plaintiffs.
DOJ-OGR-00019335.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 21, 2020, in the criminal case against a defendant (implied Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government opposes the defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials—specifically regarding grand jury subpoenas issued to an unnamed 'Recipient' during the Epstein investigation—in separate civil litigation. The Government argues this violates the protective order which restricts discovery material solely for the defense of the criminal action.
DOJ-OGR-00019306.jpg
This document is a page from a court's Protective Order, filed on July 30, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It outlines the rules for handling sensitive case information ('Discovery'), specifying that the entire defense team is bound by the order and that any dissemination of materials must be secure. The order strictly prohibits all parties, including the Government and the Defendant's team, from posting any Discovery information on the internet or social media.
DOJ-OGR-00019261.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details a procedural history where the Government obtained materials protected by civil orders after receiving permission from one court (Court-1) but not another (Court-2). The Defendant in a related criminal case learned of this through discovery. The current court is now permitting the Defendant to provide this information under seal to the relevant courts to resolve the conflict.
DOJ-OGR-00019260.jpg
This document is page 3 of 5 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request to modify a protective order to allow the disclosure of discovery documents to judges in related civil cases, characterizing the Defendant's arguments as 'vague, speculative, and conclusory.' The text references a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and subpoenas issued to an unnamed 'Recipient' entity.
DOJ-OGR-00017205.jpg
This document is page 184 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It captures the final moments of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, where she asks the jury to find the defendant guilty of participating in the sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions, starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00017198.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court rebuttal on August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Comey, argues against the defense's claim that the FBI manipulated witnesses. She asserts there is no evidence for this accusation, citing testimony from witnesses like Special Agent Young, Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie, who all stated they were only asked to tell the truth. Ms. Comey concludes that for the defense's argument to hold, the jury would have to believe that all these witnesses lied about the defendant's role in their abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00016978.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss jury instructions regarding 'overt acts' involving witnesses named Jane, Annie, and Kate. The government agrees to remove an instruction related to Kate to avoid an improper conviction based solely on her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016942.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach debating the specific language regarding the age of 'minors' in Count Five of the indictment, which covers a conspiracy period from 2001 to 2004. The prosecutor clarifies that for sex trafficking counts, the relevant age of consent is statutorily defined as 18.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Security Guards | $0.00 | Defendant proposes to pay for on-premises secur... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Young girls | $0.00 | Cash payments handed to girls after massage app... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Bank Accounts | $0.00 | Placing assets into accounts held under other n... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Unnamed real esta... | $0.00 | Purchasing a home using a trust in another name. | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Unknown (Employee... | $250,000.00 | Payment discussed by The Court and Defense as p... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Unknown (Employee... | $100,000.00 | Payment discussed by The Court and Defense as p... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Security Guards | $0.00 | Proposal that Defendant would pay for on-premis... | View |
| N/A | Received | Epstein | the defendant | $0.00 | Receipt of funds mentioned in context of missin... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Spouse/Husband | $0.00 | Transfer of 'millions of dollars' of assets thr... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | CAROLYN | $0.00 | Paid twice as much when she brought friends to ... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Virginia | $0.00 | Paid more as encouragement to recruit additiona... | View |
| N/A | Received | Sale of Property | the defendant | $0.00 | Sale of the Manhattan townhouse, noted as the p... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Various Accounts | $0.00 | Placing assets into accounts held under other n... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Unknown seller | $0.00 | Purchase of a real estate transaction under a f... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | US | $0.00 | Purchasing a home using a trust in another name. | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | the defendant | $0.00 | Hypothetical 'absence of payments' mentioned as... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Real Estate Selle... | $0.00 | Purchase of a real estate transaction under a f... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Virginia | $0.00 | Monetary incentives used to encourage Virginia ... | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Security Guards | $0.00 | Proposal that Defendant would pay for on-premis... | View |
| N/A | Received | N/A | the defendant | $70,000.00 | Cash found in safe at NY home. | View |
| N/A | Paid | the defendant | Unknown | $0.00 | Purchase of Kinnerton Street residence | View |
| 2025-03-01 | Paid | the defendant | Marital Assets | $20,000,000.00 | Amount brought to the marriage by the defendant... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Paid | the defendant | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Fine imposed as part of sentencing | View |
| 2022-07-08 | Paid | the defendant | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Fine imposed as part of sentencing. | View |
| 2022-07-08 | Paid | the defendant | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Criminal Fine imposed during sentencing | View |
Request for redactions
Arguments for redactions based on undisclosed issues, credibility, and due process.
Schedule massage appointments
Scheduling appointments that served as cover for abuse.
Instruction regarding Carolyn
Instructed Virginia to show Carolyn 'what to do'.
Legal Defense
5 hours daily / 25 hours weekly of privileged attorney-client communication.
General/Legal
Access to phone in day room.
Legal consultation
In-person visits available 7 days a week but declined by counsel
Legal consultation
VTC calls and supplemental phone calls
Legal consultation
Defendant is able to send and receive emails every day
Third motion for bail
Defendant argues new conditions warrant reconsideration of earlier rulings and that the Government's case is diminished.
Little Black Book
Contact book containing Melissa's name and noting she is a friend of Carolyn's.
Maxwell Br. at 53
Argument that disclosure will color Juror 50's testimony.
Boarding assistance
Defendant 'made it happen' for Jane to get on a flight without proper identification.
Threat to safety
The defendant sent an email from within the MDC to the IG, claiming to be in fear for her safety and that MDC staff members were threatening her.
Threat to safety
The defendant sent an email from within the MDC to the IG, claiming to be in fear for her safety and that MDC staff members were threatening her.
Reply Brief
Devotes a single sentence to claim of pre-indictment delay.
Request to stay ruling
Request to stay ruling pending release of a documentary featuring Juror 50; request was denied.
Request to stay ruling
Request to stay ruling pending release of a documentary featuring Juror 50 (Denied).
Motion for a new trial
Defendant filed a motion for a new trial.
Juror's interviews
A letter from the Defendant informing the Court about the juror's interviews, filed shortly after the Government's letter.
Opposition to hearing request
A second letter from the Defendant on the same day, opposing the Government's request for a hearing.
Request for Reciprocal Discovery
Request for notice regarding any expert witness the defendant intends to rely upon.
Thirteen motions in limine
Defense filed motions to exclude certain evidence, which this document opposes.
Court-ordered disclosures
Hard drive sent via FedEx.
Intent to call expert witness
Notification of intent to call Dr. Rocchio in the case-in-chief.
Plea
The defendant confirms they have discussed the matter with their attorney, waives the public reading of the indictment, and pleads 'not guilty'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity