| 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 |
This legal document is a memorandum from the Government arguing against the defendant's bail proposal. The Government asserts the defendant is a flight risk due to her considerable but undisclosed financial resources, her failure to submit a financial affidavit, and her history of lying under oath, specifically citing two counts of perjury from a 2016 civil suit. The document urges the Court to view the defendant as untrustworthy and deny the bail proposal, which it claims offers no security for her appearance.
This document is page 9 of a government filing (Document 22) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 13, 2020. The text argues that the defendant is a significant flight risk, citing her demonstrated skill at living in hiding and her steps to conceal herself after Jeffrey Epstein's indictment. The government contends that her decision to remain in the US previously does not mitigate the risk now that she faces a six-count indictment and the reality of a potential lengthy prison sentence.
This document details the July 2, 2020 arrest of the defendant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell) at a remote New Hampshire property. It describes her attempt to flee from agents inside the house and the discovery of a cell phone wrapped in tin foil to evade detection. The text also notes that the defendant's brother hired a security team of former British military members to guard her, and that the property was purchased in cash by an LLC.
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss charges. The Government asserts that the charges are timely under the law, independent of a prior investigation, and that the defendant's claims are baseless. Furthermore, the document argues that the defendant poses an extreme flight risk due to her international ties, financial resources, and French citizenship, noting that France does not extradite its citizens to the U.S.
This document is a legal filing from the government arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The government asserts the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her opaque finances, access to extraordinary resources abroad, and demonstrated skill at hiding. The proposed $5 million bond is deemed insufficient because it relies on an overseas property as collateral and six unidentified co-signers whose ability or incentive to pay is unknown.
A court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 7, 2020. The document addresses victim notification regarding detention hearings and excludes specific time periods from the Speedy Trial Act due to delays in transferring the defendant and logistical issues with remote proceedings. It also references the need for a protective order regarding discovery.
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 document is page 8 of a legal filing (likely a detention memo) from the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It argues the defendant is a flight risk due to massive financial resources, citing over 15 bank accounts with balances reaching $20 million, a $15 million NYC property sale in 2016, and recent large transfers in 2019. A footnote explicitly links the defendant to Jeffrey Epstein, noting that over $20 million was transferred from Epstein's accounts to hers between 2007 and 2011.
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 legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, is a motion arguing for the pre-trial detention of a 58-year-old defendant. The prosecution asserts the defendant is a significant flight risk due to the serious nature of the charges, which involve targeting minors over several years and carry a potential 35-year sentence. The argument is supported by the strength of the evidence, including victim testimony corroborated by flight records and diary entries, and legal precedent suggesting long sentences increase the incentive to flee.
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Document 220) from the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) dated March 5, 2021, regarding the incarceration conditions of the defendant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell). It addresses safety concerns necessitating her isolation and responds to a court inquiry by stating that MDC cannot provide an eye mask as it is considered contraband, though she may use other items. A footnote clarifies that her current housing was determined partly due to her own safety concerns regarding the general population and as an alternative to the SHU.
This document is page 3 of a legal reply brief filed on April 19, 2021, in Case 21-770 (associated with Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense argues that the lower court did not conduct a 'lengthy bail hearing' and that the Government presented no actual evidence, relying solely on the text of the Indictment to argue the strength of the case and flight risk. The filing contends the court erred by accepting the Indictment itself as proof of the strength of evidence.
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing, describes the search and wellness check procedures applied to a defendant at the MDC facility. It details daily pat-down searches, cell searches, and frequent nightly flashlight checks for safety. The document also responds to a specific complaint from the defendant's counsel on February 16, 2021, stating that an internal investigation found the search in question was appropriate and video-recorded, and that a subsequent directive for the defendant to clean her cell was due to hygiene issues, not retaliation.
This legal document, part of a court filing, details the conditions of confinement for an unnamed female defendant at the MDC. It outlines that while in-person attorney visits are available seven days a week in rooms with HEPA filters, her defense counsel has opted for remote communication via VTC, email, and phone. The document also describes the facility's standard procedures for mail processing and the multiple daily and weekly pat-down and body scan searches the defendant undergoes.
This is page 2 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on March 8, 2021, detailing the confinement conditions of the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) at the MDC. It asserts she has significant out-of-cell time (7am-8pm), access to technology and recreation, and extensive privileged access to legal counsel via VTC (25 hours/week) and phone. It also notes that in-person legal visits resumed at the facility on February 16, 2021, and clarifies privacy measures regarding cameras during attorney calls.
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York regarding the conditions of confinement for a defendant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell) at the MDC. The text details the defendant's schedule, including 13 hours of time outside the isolation cell daily (7am-8pm), access to discovery materials, computers, CorrLinks, and legal calls. It asserts that the defendant has more access to discovery and attorney communication than any other inmate at the facility, even while in quarantine.
This document is a court order denying a defendant's motion for bail. The Court finds that the defendant would retain access to substantial assets, including $450,000 for living expenses and other valuables worth hundreds of thousands, which constitutes a significant flight risk. The Court concludes that no set of conditions can reasonably guarantee the defendant's future appearance in court and therefore denies the motion.
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 document is page 5 (marked page 7 of 12 in the PDF) of a court order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text outlines the legal standards for bail and detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), citing Second Circuit precedents regarding the presumption of detention and the burden of proof. The 'Discussion' section notes that the Defendant (Maxwell) is filing her third motion for bail, arguing that new proposed conditions and pending pre-trial motions warrant a reconsideration of her detention.
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on March 22, 2021 (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), denying the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell, implied) third motion for release on bail. The Court rejects new proposals, including renouncing French and British citizenship and asset monitoring, citing continued flight risk, substantial resources, and foreign ties. It references previous denials from July and December 2020 and confirms her continued incarceration at the Metropolitan Detention Center.
This document is the conclusion page (Page 9) of a legal filing submitted on March 9, 2021, by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The filing argues that the defendant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell) poses a substantial flight risk and that their 'Third Bail Motion' should be denied. The document is signed by Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz.
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should reject the defendant's proposed monitorship condition for her release from detention. The Government contends the proposal is insufficient because the defendant has a history of lacking candor about her finances, possesses significant international ties, and would retain control over substantial unrestrained assets, such as a $2 million townhouse in London. The filing emphasizes that the defendant remains a flight risk, a concern heightened by the previously established difficulty and length of any potential extradition process.
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 legal document is a court ruling denying a defendant's release from the MDC, a detention facility experiencing a significant COVID-19 outbreak. The Court acknowledges the health risks but ultimately finds that the defendant poses a substantial flight risk and has no underlying health conditions that would justify release. The Court also determines that a new hearing is unnecessary, as the reasons from a prior hearing on July 14, 2020, still apply.
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330, filed Dec 30, 2020) arguing against granting bail to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues that no conditions, including GPS monitoring or private security, can assure her appearance given her prior sophistication in evading detection. It cites the 'Boustani' precedent to argue against a 'two-tiered bail system' that allows wealthy defendants to create private jails using their own funds.
| 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 |
Previews argument regarding Juror 50's motion, claiming it is a discovery request.
Review of discovery materials and legal consultation.
Hypothetical 'absence of phone calls' mentioned as a potential argument by the defense regarding missing phone records.
Defendant discussed sexual topics with girls to make them comfortable with sexual contact involving Epstein.
5 hours per weekday (25 hours/week) of attorney calls.
Calls placed from the day room phone.
Defendant's brief cited at page 12 regarding legislative history.
Defendant was asked 'did you do that' and answered 'no', leading to perjury charges.
Referenced as 'The Defendant's Motion for a New Trial'
Announced themselves as federal agents.
Defendant reported approximately $3.8 million in assets; Government claims this was less than candid.
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 seeking documentation of dates on which Juror 50 opened and closed social media accounts.
Defendant stated ''92, '93 was when I was there' regarding the residence.
Called to set up appointments with Carolyn at Epstein's mansion.
Talked about family problems, traumatic personal experiences, and goals; compliemented her body.
Communications regarding defense preparation and review of discovery
Raised two issues: seeking identities of co-conspirators and disclosure of co-conspirator statements.
Pretrial motions requesting identification of uncharged co-conspirators.
Phone conversations observed visually but not audibly by MDC staff.
Informing the Court about the juror's interviews.
Opposing the Government's request for a hearing and arguing for a new trial.
Two depositions in a civil matter where the defendant allegedly made false material declarations.
Instructed employees not to speak directly with Epstein, not to talk to visitors, and to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing.'
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