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-00008964.jpg
This document is page 2 of a Government filing from February 16, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Government argues against the defendant's requests to redact specific information from a briefing, including arguments about the jury pool composition (specifically regarding sexual abuse survivors), investigative steps taken by the defense, the defense's view of underlying facts, and discovery requests. The Government asserts these redactions are not authorized by the Court's previous orders or are not narrowly tailored.
DOJ-OGR-00008917.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated February 11, 2022. Judge Alison J. Nathan outlines the requirements for filing amicus briefs (specifically mentioning NACDL) and notes that the Defendant's motion for a new trial became fully briefed on February 9, 2022. The Judge states the Court will rule expeditiously and will not delay its ruling for forthcoming amicus briefs.
DOJ-OGR-00019871.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government, outlines the defendant's significant and complex financial resources, arguing they pose a flight risk. It details numerous large transactions, including a $15 million property sale in 2016, multi-hundred-thousand-dollar transfers in 2019, and historical transfers of over $20 million involving accounts associated with Jeffrey Epstein. The Government contends that these activities make the defendant's total financial picture opaque and difficult to determine.
DOJ-OGR-00017313.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion between the Judge and counsel regarding jury deliberation schedules, followed by the Judge reading a specific note from the jury. The note asks a legal question about 'Count Four,' specifically whether the defendant can be found guilty if she aided in the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' on a return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico, for the purpose of sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00017250.jpg
This document is page 229 of a court transcript (Document 767) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains jury instructions delivered by the judge explaining the legal concept of 'conscious avoidance' in relation to conspiracy charges, clarifying that deliberate ignorance can imply knowledge but cannot substitute for intent to join a conspiracy. The page concludes by introducing Instruction No. 40 regarding Venue and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00017248.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, containing a judge's instructions to a jury. The judge explains the legal standards for considering the acts of a coconspirator as evidence against the defendant and defines the concept of "conscious avoidance," where a person can be found to have acted knowingly if they deliberately ignored obvious facts.
DOJ-OGR-00017237.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) detailing the charge in Count Three of an indictment. The charge alleges that the defendant participated in a conspiracy from approximately 1994 to 2004 to transport individuals under the age of 17 for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. The document outlines the object of the conspiracy and the legal requirement to prove an agreement between the defendant and at least one other person.
DOJ-OGR-00017222.jpg
This document is page 201 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instructions No. 18 and 19 regarding Count Four, which charges the defendant with the transportation of an individual under the age of 17 to engage in illegal sexual activity under Title 18, U.S.C. Section 2423(a). The text outlines the legal elements the government must prove, including the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age and intent to engage in criminal sexual activity under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00017217.jpg
This page contains a transcript of jury instructions from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The judge explains the legal distinction between conspiracy charges and substantive charges. The text specifically details Instruction No. 13 regarding Count Two, citing Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422, which defines the federal crime of enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity involving interstate travel.
DOJ-OGR-00013353.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Pagliuca) regarding the admissibility of spiral-bound message books kept by household staff, specifically Ms. Hesse, under the 'business records exception.' The defense argues that despite Ms. Hesse's records being well-maintained, other messages in the collection are undated and unsigned, challenging the consistency of the household practice.
DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on June 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The judge denies the Defendant's request to redact statements related to victims Annie Farmer, Kate, and Giuffre, ruling that the documents are judicial records subject to public access under the First Amendment. The court argues that the Defendant's concerns do not outweigh the presumption of public access, noting that the Court (as decision-maker) can evaluate the submissions without prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00010745.jpg
This document is a court order from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge rules that while the Defendant challenges whether Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant meet the statutory definition of 'crime victims' under the CVRA, the Court has broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to consider information at sentencing. Consequently, the Court permits these four women to provide written submissions for the sentencing record but denies their requests to make in-person statements.
DOJ-OGR-00010731.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 26, 2022, describes the status of a defendant being held on suicide watch at the MDC. It confirms that despite her status, she has been given all her legal paperwork to prepare for sentencing and has access to her counsel. The document also addresses and reports the resolution of the defendant's complaints regarding clothing and lighting, and notes that the Warden is overseeing an investigation into a separate safety concern she raised.
DOJ-OGR-00010730.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 26, 2022, details the situation of a defendant at the MDC. After the defendant emailed the Bureau of Prisons Inspector General's Office on June 24, 2022, claiming threats from staff, the Warden and Chief Psychologist assessed her to be at high risk for self-harm. Consequently, instead of placing her in the Special Housing Unit, they put her on suicide watch, noting her inconsistent statements and refusal to cooperate with psychology staff, and suspecting she may be attempting to get a single cell to engage in self-harm.
DOJ-OGR-00010661.jpg
This document is page 2 of a government filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 24, 2022. The Government argues that victims have a right to be heard at sentencing and opposes the defendant's request to redact victim impact statements, citing that privacy interests belong to the victims, not the defendant. The filing cites legal precedents (Eberhard, Lugosch) regarding the Court's discretion to accept information and the standards for sealing documents.
DOJ-OGR-00010589.jpg
This document is page 54 of a Government sentencing submission in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on June 22, 2022. The text argues for the imposition of a maximum $750,000 fine, notes that no forfeiture is sought due to a lack of identified property owned by the defendant used in the offense, and states that no restitution is sought because the six identified victims (Jane, Annie, Kate, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa) have already been compensated via the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund or civil settlements.
DOJ-OGR-00010588.jpg
This document is a page from a government sentencing memorandum filed on June 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues for a significant financial penalty, highlighting that the defendant's wealth—derived largely from $23 million transferred by Jeffrey Epstein and the sale of a Manhattan townhouse—facilitated the abuse of victims and was concealed from Pretrial Services. The text asserts that her dishonesty regarding her assets is an aggravating factor warranting an above-Guidelines fine.
DOJ-OGR-00010587.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a lenient sentence for a defendant. The Government refutes the defendant's claims of abuse and poor health during her confinement at the MDC, citing BOP records and courtroom observations of her being 'perfectly healthy'. The Government requests that the Court impose the maximum allowable fine of $750,000, arguing it is warranted given the defendant is a 'multi-millionaire' whose wealth may have come from a co-conspirator.
DOJ-OGR-00010571.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a significant prison sentence (360 to 660 months) for a defendant convicted of sexually exploiting underage girls. It refutes the defendant's arguments for a lighter sentence by citing legal precedents (Stinson, Sash) that prioritize the plain text of sentencing guidelines over conflicting commentary. A footnote dismisses the defendant's comparison of her potential sentence to that of Epstein's as a flawed argument based on different guideline structures.
DOJ-OGR-00010566.jpg
This document is page 31 of a legal filing (Document 670) from the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 22, 2022. The text argues for a sentencing enhancement based on 'undue influence' exerted over a victim named Carolyn. It details how the defendant (Maxwell) groomed Carolyn by exploiting her drug addiction with money, discussing her personal trauma, and directing Virginia (Giuffre) to teach Carolyn how to sexually gratify Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00010565.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a sentencing enhancement against the defendant, identified as Maxwell. It presents evidence of her leadership role in a criminal conspiracy, citing her authority over an associate named Kellen, which is supported by flight records on Epstein's planes and her delegation of illicit tasks. The document then justifies a specific two-point "Undue Influence" enhancement by referencing U.S. Sentencing Guidelines concerning crimes where an adult participant influences a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00010552.jpg
This document is a page from a government legal filing arguing for a harsher prison sentence for a defendant. The prosecution contends that the sentencing calculation should include two additional victims, Virginia Roberts and Melissa, which would increase the offense level from 40 to 42. This change would raise the recommended sentencing range from 292-365 months to 360-660 months' imprisonment, based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00010411.jpg
This document is the final page of a court order from April 2022 in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced by case number 1:20-cr-00330). Judge Alison J. Nathan denies the defendant's motion regarding pre-indictment delay but grants the motion regarding multiplicity, ruling that Counts One and Five overlap with Count Three. Consequently, the conviction is formally entered on Counts Three, Four, and Six only, with sentencing scheduled for June 28, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00010407.jpg
This document is page 41 of a legal filing (Doc 657) from April 2022 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The court is rejecting the Defendant's arguments that pre-indictment delay caused a prejudicial loss of evidence, specifically noting the Defendant failed to explain the loss of government property records, proof of Epstein's residency, or flight manifests delivered by pilot Larry Visoski to Epstein's New York office. The court also dismisses arguments regarding deceased potential witnesses as vague assertions.
DOJ-OGR-00010406.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) from April 29, 2022, likely rejecting a motion by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the defense's failure to prove that missing evidence (financial records, phone records, and pre-9/11 flight manifests) prejudiced the case. The court notes that the defense's claim that these missing records would show an absence of incriminating connections (payments, calls to victims) is purely speculative.
| 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 |
Argument on the merits of Juror 50's motion to intervene
Previews argument regarding Juror 50's motion, claiming it is a discovery request.
Legal Defense
Review of discovery materials and legal consultation.
N/A
Hypothetical 'absence of phone calls' mentioned as a potential argument by the defense regarding missing phone records.
Sexual Topics
Defendant discussed sexual topics with girls to make them comfortable with sexual contact involving Epstein.
Legal Consultation
5 hours per weekday (25 hours/week) of attorney calls.
Legal Consultation
Calls placed from the day room phone.
Sentencing Arguments
Defendant's brief cited at page 12 regarding legislative history.
Questioning regarding guilt
Defendant was asked 'did you do that' and answered 'no', leading to perjury charges.
Motion for a New Trial
Referenced as 'The Defendant's Motion for a New Trial'
Identification
Announced themselves as federal agents.
Financial Assets
Defendant reported approximately $3.8 million in assets; Government claims this was less than candid.
Recruitment of minors
Q. Can you list for me all the girls that you have met and brought to Jeffrey Epstein’s house that were under the age of 18?
Request 2(c)
Request seeking documentation of dates on which Juror 50 opened and closed social media accounts.
No Subject
Defendant stated ''92, '93 was when I was there' regarding the residence.
Appointments
Called to set up appointments with Carolyn at Epstein's mansion.
Personal Life
Talked about family problems, traumatic personal experiences, and goals; compliemented her body.
Legal Defense
Communications regarding defense preparation and review of discovery
Response Letter (Dkt. No. 331)
Raised two issues: seeking identities of co-conspirators and disclosure of co-conspirator statements.
Mem. of Law (Dkt. No. 293)
Pretrial motions requesting identification of uncharged co-conspirators.
Legal consultation
Phone conversations observed visually but not audibly by MDC staff.
Dkt. No. 569
Informing the Court about the juror's interviews.
Dkt. No. 570
Opposing the Government's request for a hearing and arguing for a new trial.
Civil matter depositions
Two depositions in a civil matter where the defendant allegedly made false material declarations.
Code of Silence
Instructed employees not to speak directly with Epstein, not to talk to visitors, and to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing.'
Instruction
Directed Virginia to show Carolyn how to sexually gratify Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity