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-00016175.jpg
This document is a transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim in a legal case. The statement aims to undermine the credibility of a witness named Kate by portraying her as an ambitious socialite who willingly and eagerly maintained a decade-long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, even while he was incarcerated. The speaker suggests Kate's testimony against Ghislaine is suspect, especially since she only 'pointed the finger' after Epstein's death.
DOJ-OGR-00002306.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal motion filed on January 25, 2021, in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense argues that Count One and Count Three of the indictment are 'multiplicitous' and violate the Fifth Amendment because they allege identical overt acts, geographic scope (NY, FL, NM, UK), and objectives. The filing requests the Court dismiss one of the counts.
DOJ-OGR-00002306(1).jpg
This document is a page from a defense motion (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the case number 1:20-cr-00330) filed on January 25, 2021. It argues that Count One and Count Three of the indictment are multiplicitous and violate the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment because they allege identical overt acts, geographic scope (NY, FL, NM, UK), and objectives. The filing concludes by requesting the Court dismiss one of the counts.
DOJ-OGR-00002249.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 30, 2020, discusses a bail application for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It recounts that the Court initially found her financial disclosures incomplete, but she has since provided a more detailed report from a UK accounting firm, Macalvins, and a review by a former IRS agent. Despite the new information, the Court remains unpersuaded that the proposed bail package, secured by $8 million in property and $500,000 in cash, would reasonably assure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00002249(1).jpg
This document is page 17 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, denying bail conditions for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the defendant's proposed bail package, including $8 million in property, $500,000 in cash, and bonds co-signed by friends and family, supported by a financial report from UK firm Macalvins analyzing her assets from 2015-2020. Despite the submission of new financial data and verification by fraud examiners, the Court remains unpersuaded that the package reasonably assures her appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00002243.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 30, 2020, details the Court's analysis of a renewed bail motion for a defendant, identified as Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court remains concerned about her substantial international ties and multiple citizenships, particularly her French citizenship, as a significant flight risk. The document weighs the defendant's offer to waive extradition rights from France and the UK against conflicting evidence, including a letter from the French Ministry of Justice stating French law prohibits extraditing its nationals and the defendant's own experts using uncertain language.
DOJ-OGR-00002243(1).jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against the defendant's, Ghislaine Maxwell's, renewed motion for bail. The prosecution asserts that her substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships (including French), and connections abroad make her a significant flight risk. The document contends that her offer to waive extradition rights from France and the UK is legally contested, citing a letter from the French Ministry of Justice and the probabilistic language used by her own experts, which does not eliminate the risk of her successfully blocking extradition.
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-00002238(1).jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the Defendant's arguments for release from detention, citing new information such as family ties in the U.S., a detailed financial report, waivers of extradition from the UK and France, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these arguments, the document concludes with the Court's finding that no conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00002229(1).jpg
This legal document, dated December 17, 2020, and authored by David Perry QC, analyzes the legal framework for extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States, specifically concerning Ms Maxwell. It argues that none of the statutory bars to extradition apply to her case and highlights the rarity of the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition, citing the past case of Gary McKinnon as an example that is no longer applicable. The document notes that the purpose of the Extradition Act 2003 is to streamline and facilitate extradition, with most cases concluding within two years.
DOJ-OGR-00002228.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit 103-2) dated December 23, 2020, analyzing UK extradition law in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that if Maxwell were to flee the US to the UK, she would likely be denied bail and her arguments against extradition (oppression, human rights) would fail due to 'bad faith' and the serious nature of the charges. It also clarifies the limited powers of the UK Secretary of State to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002228(1).jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a court filing from December 23, 2020, argues against the availability of certain bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell. It posits that a finding of oppression is unlikely given she absconded from the United States, and that human rights claims under the ECHR are also improbable. The document further clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition is strictly limited by the Extradition Act 2003 and is not a matter of general discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00002227.jpg
This document is an Addendum Opinion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It analyzes English extradition law to support the argument that if Maxwell were to flee to the UK, she would almost certainly be denied bail there and her extradition back to the US would be a 'virtual foregone conclusion.' The opinion asserts that a waiver of extradition signed by Maxwell would be highly admissible and relevant in UK courts.
DOJ-OGR-00002227(1).jpg
This Addendum Opinion, filed on December 23, 2020, addresses matters of English extradition law concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. It reaffirms that it is highly unlikely Maxwell could successfully resist extradition to the United States for charges in a July 2020 indictment, and that bail would likely be refused if she had absconded from prior proceedings. The document also notes that Maxwell's waiver of extradition would be admissible but not compel consent, though it would be a relevant factor in contested proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00002220(1).jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell requesting release on bail. It argues against the government's assertion that she is a flight risk, citing her proposed bail package and extradition waivers, and claims the government's standard is impossibly high. The filing also uses the recent surge of COVID-19 cases at the MDC and the suspension of her legal visits as further justification for her release, arguing her constitutional rights are being eroded.
DOJ-OGR-00002219.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 103) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 23, 2020. The text argues against the government's concerns regarding Maxwell's flight risk, utilizing expert opinions from Mr. Julié (French law) and David Perry (UK law) to assert that extradition from France or the UK would be legally permissible and likely, and that bail in the UK would be denied. It specifically refutes the relevance of a 2006 precedent where France refused extradition, arguing that international treaties prevail over French national legislation.
DOJ-OGR-00002219(1).jpg
This legal document argues against the government's position on the extradition of Ms. Maxwell. It presents expert opinions from Mr. Julié on French law and David Perry on UK law to contend that extradition from France is permissible under the existing treaty and that resisting extradition or obtaining bail in the UK would be highly unlikely. The document refutes the government's reliance on a 2006 case as precedent and clarifies the limited discretion of the Secretary of State to deny extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00002218(1).jpg
This legal document is a filing by Ms. Maxwell's defense, arguing that she is not a flight risk. The defense refutes the government's interpretation of her actions (like buying a home with a trust) as evidence of intent to flee, claiming they were for protection. It also argues that her willingness to waive extradition rights to France and the UK shows her commitment to facing charges, countering the government's claims about French extradition law.
DOJ-OGR-00002208.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 103) dated December 23, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The filing argues for Maxwell's release on bail, citing her ties to the U.S. (including a redacted spouse), the pledging of all assets, the weakness of the government's case relying on only three witnesses, and health risks due to a COVID surge at the MDC detention center.
DOJ-OGR-00002208(1).jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 103) in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 23, 2020. The filing outlines arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell for bail, countering the government's case by highlighting her substantial ties to the U.S. (including her spouse), her financial disclosures, and the unlikelihood of extradition refusal from France or the UK, while also citing a COVID surge at MDC as further justification.
DOJ-OGR-00002187.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The Government contends the defendant is a flight risk due to substantial, previously underreported assets of approximately $22 million, including a $2 million London townhouse and millions in unrestrained funds. The argument is further supported by the fact that two proposed co-signers are UK residents, which would make the bond effectively worthless and unrecoverable if the defendant were to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00002187(1).jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The government contends that the defendant, who possesses approximately $22 million in assets including a $2 million London townhouse, is a significant flight risk and has previously been deceptive about her finances. The filing also asserts that the proposed bail package is inadequate, particularly because two co-signers are UK residents, making it practically impossible to recover the bond amount if the defendant were to flee.
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-00002183(1).jpg
This is page 22 of a legal filing (Document 100) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 18, 2020. The text argues that the defendant represents a significant flight risk because extradition from the UK or France is legally complex, lengthy, and not guaranteed, even if the defendant currently waives her rights to challenge it. The prosecution cites case law (Namer, Cilins, Abdullahu) to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition supports continued detention pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002182.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable. It supports this claim by referencing France's strict policy against extraditing its own citizens to the U.S. and by citing the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires a judge to evaluate any such waiver in person with the defendant represented by counsel, rendering anticipatory waivers meaningless.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity