GOVERNMENT
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Prosecution defense |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MDC
|
Information conduit |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial defendant vs prosecutor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror prosecution |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial prosecution defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Michael Thomas
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecutors
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
witnesses
|
Professional testimony |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial litigant |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant/client
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant, our client
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller
|
Non agency |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Tracy Chapell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nicole Hesse
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendants
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Boies Schiller
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nicole Hesse
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Freeman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion to compel discovery from the Government, including Jencks Act, Brady, Giglio mat... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court's ruling on Maxwell's discovery requests, concluding she is not entitled to expedited disco... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court accepts Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material. | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Accusation by the government that Epstein paid Maxwell millions for recruiting young, underage wo... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's intention to produce 'Materials' to the defendant (Maxwell) under a protective order... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Argument that defendants should be able to rely on government promises in written agreements and ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or to compel Government to s... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, covering periods beyond the Indictment. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's review of 'Materials' (documents and photographs) related to Epstein's sexual abuse ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment due to alleged actual prejudice from Government's delay i... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ex parte proceeding where government allegedly misled Chief Judge McMahon to obtain a subpoena. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Client's arrest and detention despite voluntary surrender. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of discovery timeline, with the government requesting until November. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government initiated a massive OPR investigation into the execution of the NPA. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court agrees that some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated but acknowledges defamation action re... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) not disclosed to victims | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search warrants executed at properties of Jeffrey Epstein. | New York and Virgin Islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify victims under the § 2255 provisio... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Depositions taken as a result of government-supported civil suits against the speaker. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Indictment of Thomas | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| N/A | N/A | Opening of Grand Jury Investigation | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing regarding fines, restitution, and guideline calculations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Planned resolution of pending redaction issues | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Victims' lawsuit against the government | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ex parte modification of the protective order by Judge McMahon. | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000974.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk, citing prior court decisions where defendants who knew of impending charges did not flee. It emphasizes that the government had no evidence of Ms. Maxwell planning to leave the country and arrested her without warning before a holiday. The document further contends that Ms. Maxwell's actions to avoid public scrutiny after Epstein's arrest do not indicate an intent to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00000972.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 10, 2020, argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. It asserts that she has strong ties to the United States, including being a naturalized citizen since 2002, having close family in the country, and having resided there for almost 30 years. The document also states she has no prior criminal record and has actively participated in U.S. legal proceedings since 2015, demonstrating her intent to remain and fight the allegations against her.
DOJ-OGR-00000971.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, has successfully rebutted the legal presumption that she is a flight risk. It asserts that the government has failed to meet its burden of proving that no set of bail conditions could reasonably ensure her appearance in court. The document cites several legal precedents to support its claim that the Court should order Ms. Maxwell's release under her proposed conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00000963.jpg
This legal document argues for Ms. Maxwell's bail, asserting that the government's position on her danger to the community is inconsistent with its stance on Epstein. It highlights the COVID-19 pandemic as a health risk and an impediment to her defense, and contends that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk due to her strong community ties, U.S. citizenship, lack of criminal record, and continued presence in the U.S. since Epstein's arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00000935.jpg
This legal document argues against the government's assertion that Ghislaine Maxwell was a flight risk. It contends she was not hiding before her arrest, but was living openly in her New Hampshire home and communicating with the government via her lawyers. The document attributes her low profile to intense media harassment, citing a £10,000 bounty offered by The Sun tabloid, and includes a quote from an FBI official confirming the agency knew her whereabouts.
DOJ-OGR-00000934.jpg
This legal document, part of case 21-770, argues for granting bond by citing four precedent cases from the Southern District of New York (Hussain, Buser, Acosta, and McFadden). In each cited case, defendants charged under similar statutes (18 U.S.C. 2422 and 2423) were granted personal recognizance bonds ranging from $100,000 to $250,000 with various conditions like home detention and electronic monitoring. The document uses these examples to demonstrate a pattern of granting bond in similar circumstances within the same jurisdiction.
DOJ-OGR-00000886.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing legal filings and orders from late July 2020. It includes entries regarding motions for a protective order, responses from both the defense and prosecution, and a Memorandum Opinion & Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan resolving disputes over the protective order's language concerning victim identification and the use of discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00000883.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket containing orders and notices related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details COVID-19 protocols for courthouse entry, remote proceeding logistics, victim notification rights, and Speedy Trial Act exclusions. It also lists a memo endorsement scheduling briefing deadlines and notices of attorney appearances for Maxwell's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00000873.jpg
This legal document, filed on September 22, 2021, is a court memorandum outlining the Court's rejection of the Defendant's proposed conditions to mitigate her flight risk. The Court finds that the Defendant's offers to renounce her UK and French citizenship and to have a retired federal judge oversee her finances are insufficient to assure her appearance at future proceedings. The Court remains concerned about her ability to delay or resist extradition, especially given her substantial international ties.
DOJ-OGR-00000871.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion denying a defendant's third motion for bail. The Court concludes that the defendant remains a significant flight risk, and her new proposals—renouncing her French and British citizenship and placing assets in an account monitored by a retired judge—are insufficient to mitigate this risk. The Court highlights the unclear validity and practical impact of the citizenship renunciations, particularly citing a French official's opinion that being a French national is an "insuperable obstacle" to removal.
DOJ-OGR-00000855.jpg
This document is a log of court filings from Case 21-770, detailing events between December 10 and December 18, 2020, concerning defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries primarily revolve around the filing of a court transcript, Maxwell's renewed application for bail, and the court's orders regarding the redaction of documents related to the bail application. The court, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan, approved Maxwell's proposed redactions to protect the privacy of individuals mentioned, balancing it against the public's right to access.
DOJ-OGR-00000847.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing proceedings from July 13, 2020, to July 27, 2020. It records various court orders, including the granting of a detention motion, an arraignment where Maxwell pleaded not guilty, scheduling for discovery and trial, and rulings on motions regarding extrajudicial statements. Key participants include Judge Alison J. Nathan, the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, and various attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00000816.jpg
This is a court order dated July 18, 2019, from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, signed by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman. The order grants the Government's motion to keep a defendant in detention and denies the Defense's motion for pretrial release.
DOJ-OGR-00000814.jpg
This document is page 31 of a court order filed on July 18, 2019, denying bail or highlighting flight risks for Jeffrey Epstein. The Court notes Epstein's vast wealth (earning over $10 million/year), his international residences (France, USVI), and the lack of clarity regarding his total assets. The judge dismisses the defense's offer of a $100 million bond and rejects the proposal of paid 'trustees' to monitor Epstein due to the conflict of interest inherent in their salary.
DOJ-OGR-00000811.jpg
This document is a page from a court order denying bail for Jeffrey Epstein. The court determines that the defendant poses a significant flight risk due to his wealth, overseas ties (specifically in Paris), and the severity of the potential sentence (45 years). The court cites precedent such as United States v. Abdullahu to support the decision that no conditions can reasonably assure his appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00000810.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 18, 2019, argues against the release of the defendant, Mr. Epstein, pending trial. It presents evidence that he is a serious flight risk due to his wealth, international travel, and significant ties to Brazil, a country without an extradition treaty with the U.S. The document also cites allegations of witness tampering made by victims' attorney David Boies and concludes that no conditions, including an armed guard, would be sufficient to ensure Mr. Epstein's appearance at trial, labeling him a danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00000808.jpg
This legal document details the arguments between the prosecution (Government) and the defense regarding a foreign (Austrian) passport found in the possession of the defendant, Mr. Epstein. The defense claims Epstein acquired it from a friend in the 1980s for protection during Middle East travel and never used it, while the government argues its existence, along with stamps from various countries and its issuance under an alias, indicates he is a serious flight risk. The document also notes that the defense submitted an asset summary showing Epstein possesses over $56 million in cash.
DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the pretrial detention of a defendant, Mr. Epstein. It establishes that rules of evidence are relaxed in bail hearings, giving courts wide discretion, and cites legal precedent that in cases involving sexual victimization of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, there is a presumption for remand. The document states that the burden is on Mr. Epstein to provide evidence that he is not a danger or flight risk, while the Government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion.
DOJ-OGR-00000772.jpg
This legal document is a filing by counsel for victims of Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that the government has violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The filing contends the government sought to unseal grand jury materials without properly conferring with or notifying the victims, repeating past misconduct. The counsel expresses concern about the adequacy of redactions and urges the court to adopt a protocol to protect the victims' rights to fairness, privacy, and dignity before any materials are released.
DOJ-OGR-00000768.jpg
This legal document argues for the disclosure of grand jury transcripts in the case of Epstein and Maxwell. It contends that the extraordinary nature of their crimes, the vast number of victims, and the public interest in full accountability outweigh the usual need for grand jury secrecy. The filing emphasizes that unsealing the transcripts would help expose the full network of enablers without forcing victims to face further retaliation and that the victims themselves support this transparency.
DOJ-OGR-00000767.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 5, 2025, is a motion arguing for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to the sex-trafficking crimes of Epstein and Maxwell. The filing, made on behalf of victims, asserts that transparency is crucial for justice, public understanding, and holding all responsible parties accountable, citing legal precedent from the Second Circuit. It emphasizes the victims' desire for full disclosure to illuminate the scope of the abuse and identify those who enabled the criminal enterprise.
DOJ-OGR-00000766.jpg
This is a memo dated August 5, 2025, from the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to federal judges Richard M. Berman and Paul A. Engelmayer. The firm, writing on behalf of victim Annie Farmer, responds to a notice about the potential unsealing of grand jury transcripts for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The memo strongly criticizes the U.S. Government for not pursuing further criminal investigations, despite admitting there were over a thousand victims, calling this inaction a 'cowardly abdication' of its duties.
DOJ-OGR-00000753.jpg
This document is a legal filing (page 8 of 10) addressing factors for maintaining grand jury secrecy. It confirms that the sole witness for the Epstein grand jury (an FBI agent) and the two witnesses for the Maxwell grand jury (the same FBI agent and an NYPD detective) are currently alive and employed. It argues for the redaction of transcripts to protect third parties and victims who were not charged in the crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00000750.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 29, 2025, argues for the disclosure of grand jury materials. It analyzes legal precedents, noting that while the Government may oppose disclosure, factors like public interest can be overriding. The document states that Defendant Epstein is deceased and cannot assert a position, while Defendant Maxwell intends to respond, and argues that the significant public interest in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell justifies disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00000748.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 29, 2025, outlines a court order issued on July 22, 2025. The Court has directed the Government to file a legal memorandum and submit extensive materials concerning the grand jury proceedings of Epstein and Maxwell. This includes indices, complete transcripts, proposed redactions, and a statement on whether victims were notified, all in relation to a motion to unseal the grand jury records.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity