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-00002336(1).jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated January 28, 2021. The US Attorney's office is addressing Judge Nathan regarding proposed redactions to the defendant's motions (Motions 3, 10, and 11) to protect victim-witness privacy and the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The government agrees to most redactions but intends to submit limited additional redactions for Motion 3 via email under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00002253.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 30, 2020, is a court ruling regarding a defendant's detention. The Court acknowledges the alarming spread of COVID-19 at the MDC facility where the defendant is held but denies release, stating the pandemic is not a sufficient basis to override its finding that the defendant is a substantial flight risk. The Court also notes the defendant has no underlying health conditions and deems a new hearing unnecessary, resolving the matter based on the submitted papers.
DOJ-OGR-00002253(1).jpg
This legal document is a court order or memorandum explaining the decision to deny a defendant's release from detention. The Court acknowledges the alarming spread of COVID-19 at the MDC facility where the defendant is housed but concludes that this does not outweigh the finding that the defendant is a substantial flight risk. The Court also notes the defendant has no underlying health conditions and determines that a new hearing is unnecessary, resolving the matter based on the submitted legal briefs.
DOJ-OGR-00002252.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request for release, reaffirming that she presents a flight risk and determining that her conditions of confinement at the MDC (including COVID-19 lockdowns) do not violate her constitutional rights or justify release. The text notes that the Defendant has received more time than other inmates to review discovery and communicate with counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00002252(1).jpg
This is page 20 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (identified by case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the defendant's request for release, reaffirming that she presents a flight risk and rejecting arguments that her conditions of confinement at the MDC (specifically relating to COVID-19 lockdowns and attorney access) violate her constitutional rights. The document notes that she has received significant time to review discovery compared to other inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00002251(1).jpg
This document is page 19 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The court rejects the Defendant's proposed release conditions, including GPS monitoring, home confinement, and private security, citing her proven sophistication in evading detection and flight risk. The ruling also emphasizes legal precedents (specifically *United States v. Boustani*) that forbid a 'two-tiered bail system' where wealthy defendants can buy their way out of detention via self-funded private security.
DOJ-OGR-00002246(1).jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's motion for release, focusing on her ties to the United States as a factor in determining flight risk. The court considers letters of support from friends, family, and her spouse, but finds them insufficient to alter its conclusion that she remains a flight risk. The court highlights a key contradiction: the defendant now emphasizes her spousal relationship to argue she has strong ties, despite having claimed she was getting divorced at the time of her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00002245(1).jpg
This is page 13 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The court is analyzing the defendant's flight risk, concluding that her French citizenship, potential to flee to Israel, and extraordinary financial resources justify continued detention. The judge argues that anticipatory extradition waivers are insufficient because the defendant could still frustrate or delay the extradition process.
DOJ-OGR-00002241.jpg
Page 9 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court rejects the Defendant's renewed motion for bail, maintaining that no conditions of release can assure her appearance in court, despite the Government not proving she poses a danger to the community. The text discusses the weight of evidence, with the defense arguing the case relies too heavily on the uncorroborated recollections of three unidentified accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00002238.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), denying a renewed motion for bail. The text outlines the Defendant's proposals for release, including paid private security, waivers of extradition from the UK and France, and arguments regarding COVID-19 conditions in jail. Despite these arguments and new financial information, the Court concludes that no conditions can reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00002237(1).jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 106) from December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It details the Defendant's new motion for bail, proposing a $28.5 million package co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family, secured by property and cash. The proposal includes home confinement with GPS monitoring, private security paid for by the defendant, and a family member acting as a third-party custodian.
DOJ-OGR-00002234(1).jpg
This document is page 2 of a Court Opinion and Order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail, citing flight risk, substantial resources, foreign citizenship in a non-extradition country, and lack of candor regarding finances. It outlines the background of the case, including the June 2020 indictment for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors and the Defendant's subsequent arrest in New Hampshire.
DOJ-OGR-00002231.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on December 28, 2020, by U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge denies the Defendant's application for release, reaffirming that she poses a flight risk and that no bail conditions can reasonably assure her appearance. The parties are ordered to submit a joint letter regarding redactions by December 30, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00002231(1).jpg
This court order, dated December 28, 2020, and signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan, denies the Defendant's application for release from custody. The Court reaffirms its initial decision, concluding that the Defendant is a flight risk and that pre-trial detention is warranted. The parties are ordered to submit a joint letter by December 30, 2020, regarding any proposed redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00002205(1).jpg
This is page 2 of a court order filed on December 23, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Judge Alison J. Nathan orders the defendant to docket redacted documents related to a renewed motion for bail by the same day, citing case law that supports redactions to protect third-party privacy interests.
DOJ-OGR-00002193(1).jpg
This document is page 29 (filed 12/18/20) of a Government opposition to a renewed bail application in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Government argues against release, citing the defendant's multiple foreign citizenships (including a non-extradition country), substantial wealth, and demonstrated sophistication in hiding assets as indicators of extreme flight risk. The document also defends the conditions of confinement at the MDC, noting the defendant has 13 hours a day to review discovery and access to attorney communications.
DOJ-OGR-00002192.jpg
This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues against the defendant's release by distinguishing her case from precedents where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and aligning it with cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho, and a 2001 case United States v. Epstein). The 'United States v. Epstein' cited here refers to a 2001 case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania involving a defendant with German/Brazilian dual citizenship, used here as legal precedent for denying bail based on lack of extradition treaties.
DOJ-OGR-00002190(1).jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (identified by case number). The text presents the prosecution's argument against granting bail, citing the defendant's wealth, foreign ties, and skill at hiding as flight risks. It argues that a 'privately funded jail' and GPS monitoring are insufficient to ensure appearance in court, citing legal precedents (Banki, Zarger, Benatar) to support the claim that electronic monitoring merely reduces a head start rather than preventing flight.
DOJ-OGR-00002188.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing opposing bail (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It argues the defendant is a flight risk due to sophisticated financial maneuvering, specifically transferring millions of dollars into trusts for her spouse to hide her true wealth ($20M+) while claiming to have only $3.4M. It highlights a lack of candor with Pretrial Services regarding her assets and the ownership of her New Hampshire residence.
DOJ-OGR-00002188(1).jpg
This document is a Government filing from December 2020 opposing the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) bail application. It argues she is a flight risk who has sophisticatedly hidden her wealth by transferring millions into trusts for her spouse over the preceding five years. The text highlights a financial discrepancy where she brought over $20 million to the marriage while her spouse contributed only $200,000, and notes her 'lack of candor' with Pretrial Services regarding property ownership.
DOJ-OGR-00002186.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) opposing bail for the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). It details her evasion of FBI agents during her arrest, including fleeing and wrapping a phone in tin foil, and argues she prioritized private security over law enforcement. Additionally, it asserts she was deceptive with Pretrial Services regarding her finances, possessing 'vast resources' far exceeding the $3.8 million she initially disclosed.
DOJ-OGR-00002184(1).jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues against granting bail to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell), citing her proven ability to evade detection. The prosecution details how she hid her identity by purchasing a home through a trust, using aliases with real estate agents, and registering finances and phones under false names following Epstein's death.
DOJ-OGR-00002183.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition rights from France and the United Kingdom is not a sufficient guarantee against flight risk. It details how the extradition process in the UK is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to judicial and executive discretion, meaning the defendant could still challenge it. The document concludes by citing legal precedent that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk, thus weighing in favor of detaining the defendant pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002182(1).jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against the defendant's bail release by highlighting the risk of non-extradition. The Government asserts that France does not extradite its citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and that any anticipatory waiver of extradition to the UK provided by the defendant is unenforceable under the UK Extradition Act of 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002180(1).jpg
This page from a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant poses a significant flight risk because she is a French citizen. The document details that the US Government confirmed with the French Ministry of Justice that France will not extradite its nationals to the US, rendering any 'extradition waiver' signed by the defendant unenforceable if she flees to France.
| 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