United Kingdom
LocationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Citizenship |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Hong Kong
|
Historical diplomatic |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
France
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Germany
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
France
|
Diplomatic colonial |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
USA
|
Alliance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Citizenship property owner |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
China
|
Diplomatic tense |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Citizenship |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
[Redacted Client]
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-01-01 | N/A | Official elevation of UK-China relations to Golden Era status | United Kingdom | View |
| 2003-03-31 | N/A | Signing of Extradition Treaty with United Kingdom (Pending) | United Kingdom | View |
| 2003-03-31 | N/A | Signing of Extradition Treaty (Pending status) | Unknown | View |
| 1993-10-15 | N/A | Conseil d’Etat decision no. 142578 | France | View |
| 1978-03-01 | N/A | UK petitions UNCHR for special rapporteur in Cambodia; blocked by Syria, USSR, Yugoslavia. | UN | View |
| 1922-01-01 | N/A | League of Nations issued the Mandate of Palestine | Palestine | View |
| 1916-01-01 | N/A | Sykes-Picot Agreement | Middle East | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001163.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is invalid. It cites two main points: first, the precedent of France refusing to extradite its own citizens, as seen in the case of Peterson, a dual US-French national; and second, the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires that any consent to extradition be evaluated by a judge in real-time with legal counsel present, rendering any prior 'anticipatory waiver' meaningless.
DOJ-OGR-00001159.jpg
This is page 14 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00001159) of a Government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed December 18, 2020. The prosecution argues against bail, citing the defendant's flight risk, wealth, and ability to frustrate extradition from France or the UK. A critical footnote reveals that in 2018, the defendant and her spouse established a trust account where they both falsely listed their marital status as 'single' on bank forms.
DOJ-OGR-00001131.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text cites an expert, Mr. Julié, who argues that France would not protect Maxwell from extradition to the U.S. if she fled there, citing her U.S. citizenship, waiver of rights, and diplomatic interests. A footnote notes that French authorities have broadened their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to include Maxwell, reducing her incentive to flee to France.
DOJ-OGR-00001129.jpg
This document is page 33 of a legal filing (dated Dec 14, 2020) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that Maxwell is not a flight risk because she has executed waivers of extradition and obtained expert reports (specifically from U.K. barrister David Perry) concluding she could not successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France. The text cites various legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) to support the validity of extradition waivers as conditions of release.
DOJ-OGR-00001128.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk due to her extreme recognizability and the constant media scrutiny she faces. To further assure the Court of her intent to face charges, she offers to sign irrevocable waivers of her right to contest extradition in both the United Kingdom and France. The filing cites the 1999 case 'United States v. Cirillo' as a legal precedent for using such waivers as a condition for release.
DOJ-OGR-00001127.jpg
This document is a page from a legal defense filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that Maxwell was not evading law enforcement but rather the press, evidenced by her use of a trackable cellphone. It further argues she is not a flight risk to France or the UK because she has irrevocably waived extradition rights and chose to remain in the US following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00001117.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell has addressed the court's concerns about her finances, which were raised at an initial bail hearing. Her defense counsel hired a UK accounting firm, Macalvins, to conduct a thorough five-year financial analysis, and a former IRS Special Agent and Certified Fraud Examiner reviewed and validated this analysis as complete and accurate. The purpose is to demonstrate financial transparency to the court to establish suitable bail conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00001107.jpg
This legal document argues for Ms. Maxwell to be released on restrictive bail. Her defense contends that the government's case lacks corroborating evidence, relies on old testimony, and that her oppressive confinement conditions at the MDC, including a COVID-19 outbreak, are unjust and impede her ability to prepare her defense. The filing also asserts she is not a flight risk, citing expert opinions on extradition from the UK and France.
DOJ-OGR-00001105.jpg
This legal document outlines a series of proposed conditions for the pretrial release of Ms. Maxwell. The conditions include home confinement in New York City with GPS monitoring, supervision by Pretrial Services, surrender of travel documents, and the presence of 24/7 private security guards paid for by Ms. Maxwell. The document argues that these measures, supported by legal precedent from the Second Circuit, are sufficient to ensure she will not flee and will appear in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001103.jpg
This document is the preliminary statement of a legal memorandum filed on December 14, 2020, supporting Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail. It outlines new information not present at her initial hearing, including details on family ties in the US, a financial report covering her and her spouse, extradition waivers for the UK and France, and arguments against flight risk. Maxwell asserts her innocence, claims the government's case relies on uncorroborated testimony from 25 years ago, and requests release to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001102.jpg
This document is a Table of Exhibits from a legal filing, likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330) based on the header stamp. It lists numerous redacted letters (likely character letters or letters of support), a financial condition report, a media analysis, and documents regarding extradition opinions from the UK and France. The document highlights interactions with the SDNY and bears a DOJ-OGR Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00001098.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing, specifically a memorandum in support of reconsidering a bail decision for Ms. Maxwell. The arguments outlined focus on her strong family ties in the United States, her willingness to provide financial transparency, and refuting the government's claims that she was a flight risk or was hiding prior to her arrest. The filing also asserts that she has waived extradition rights and that the proposed bail package is more than sufficient to ensure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001031.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, in which a representative for the government argues that a defendant is a significant flight risk. The argument is based on the defendant's dual citizenship in France and the United Kingdom, her property ownership in the UK, and her access to significant undisclosed wealth. The government asserts that extradition would be impossible from France and a lengthy, uncertain process from the UK, creating a real concern that she could live beyond the reach of US justice indefinitely.
DOJ-OGR-00000995.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against granting bail to a defendant charged with serious crimes. The Government asserts the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her extensive foreign ties, significant assets including a multi-million dollar property in the United Kingdom, and citizenship in a country that does not extradite to the United States. The filing dismisses the proposed bail package, which relies on foreign property as collateral, as providing "effectively no security at all" because the U.S. Government cannot seize foreign assets.
DOJ-OGR-00000981.jpg
This document is page 20 (filed page 25) of a legal motion filed on July 10, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense proposes a $5 million bond co-signed by six friends and relatives, secured additionally by $3.75 million in UK property, alongside home detention, GPS monitoring, and private security within NY districts. The text argues that COVID-19 increases her risk in detention and cites *United States v. Boustani* regarding the use of private security guards for wealthy defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00000964.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (bail application) for Ghislaine Maxwell, dated July 10, 2020. The defense argues that the government's concerns about flight risk due to her citizenship and finances are unfounded and notes the alleged crimes are 25 years old. The defense proposes a $5 million bond co-signed by six people, secured by UK property, along with home confinement, GPS monitoring, and strict travel restrictions within New York.
DOJ-OGR-00000962.jpg
This document is a page from a legal defense filing arguing against the pre-trial detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines her background, emphasizing her US citizenship since 1991 and strong family ties in the US to counter the government's argument that she is a flight risk. The defense disputes the government's claim that she was 'hiding,' asserting she was in regular contact with authorities through counsel since Epstein's arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00000952.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for the detention of a female defendant (identified by context as Ghislaine Maxwell). The prosecution argues she is a significant flight risk due to her wealth, multiple citizenships (US, UK, France), and possession of three passports. It notes she has taken at least 15 international flights in the last three years to locations including the UK, Japan, and Qatar.
DOJ-OGR-00000924.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing dated April 1, 2021, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text details a proposed bail package valued at over $28.5 million, including $22.5 million in personal/spousal assets, $5 million from friends/family, and a $1 million bond from a security company. The defense argues that Maxwell has no intention of fleeing and is willing to renounce her British and French citizenship to prove it.
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-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-00000496.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, details arguments concerning the Defendant, Mr. Epstein's, foreign passports and the associated flight risk. The Defense claims Epstein acquired an Austrian passport in the 1980s from a friend for personal protection during Middle East travel and never used it for international entries. Conversely, the Government argues that the passport, potentially obtained under an alias, contains stamps indicating travel to France, Spain, the UK, and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s, suggesting a capacity for false identities and a serious flight risk. The document also notes Epstein's substantial cash assets of over $56 million as of June 30, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00000470.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Richard M. Berman, filed on July 17, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecution refutes the defendant's claim that an expired Austrian passport was never used, presenting evidence of travel stamps to France, Spain, the UK, and Saudi Arabia from the 1980s. The government also highlights that Epstein has not clarified how he obtained the passport or if he holds citizenship or residency in any other country.
DOJ-OGR-00021016.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (likely a Government brief or Court Opinion) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's requests regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'travel to New York' and the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the UK, and Florida. The text argues that the Court's instructions were legally sound and that the Defendant's proposals would have confused the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016881.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The text details a procedural argument between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding the late disclosure of defense witnesses. Specifically, there is confusion distinguishing between a plainclothes police officer from the UK seeking anonymity and another 'short witness' the defense planned to call on Monday.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity