| 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 |
This legal document discusses the defendant's financial status and its implications for her bail conditions. It highlights that the defendant possesses significantly more assets ($22 million, including a $2 million London townhouse and over $4 million in unrestrained funds) than initially reported, making her a substantial flight risk. The document also raises concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed bail bond, noting that some co-signers are UK residents who haven't offered cash or property, and the defendant's $7 million attorney retainer is presumed unspent.
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition from France and the United Kingdom is unenforceable and does not mitigate her flight risk. It explains that UK law requires an independent judicial review of extradition and that the process is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to appeal, making it an ineffective guarantee. The document cites several court cases as precedent to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk and is a valid consideration for detaining a defendant pending trial.
This document is page 18 of a government filing (Document 102) from June 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues against bail by highlighting flight risks, specifically noting that France does not extradite its own citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and arguing that any 'anticipatory waiver' of extradition the defendant might sign regarding the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable under UK law (referencing the Extradition Act of 2003 and U.S. v. Stanton). The prosecution asserts that such waivers are meaningless until a defendant is physically present before a British judge.
This page from a government filing (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant is a flight risk. It highlights her time hiding in New Hampshire, her foreign ties to the UK and France, and the difficulty of extradition. A footnote reveals that in 2018, despite being married, both the defendant and her spouse listed their status as 'single' on bank trust account forms, which the government cites as evidence of a lack of candor.
A legal filing arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell is not a flight risk to France because French authorities would likely extradite her back to the U.S. expeditiously. It cites an opinion by Mr. Julié regarding French extradition law and notes that Maxwell has waived her extradition rights. A footnote reveals that French authorities have broadened their criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to include Maxwell.
This legal document summarizes expert opinions regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's potential extradition. Mr. Perry, an expert on UK law, concludes that Maxwell is unlikely to successfully resist extradition to the United States or be granted bail. William Julié, an expert on French law, clarifies that, contrary to government representations, the extradition of a French national to the USA is legally permissible.
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell by citing several past U.S. court cases where defendants waived extradition rights to demonstrate they were not a flight risk. It then introduces expert reports, specifically one from U.K. barrister David Perry, which conclude it is highly unlikely Ms. Maxwell could successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France back to the United States, further supporting the argument that she is not a flight risk.
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. The argument centers on her high public profile, which would make fleeing difficult, and her willingness to sign irrevocable waivers of extradition for both the United Kingdom and France. The document cites the case of United States v. Cirillo as a precedent for using such waivers as a condition for release.
This document is page 25 of a defense filing arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that Maxwell was not evading arrest but rather avoiding the press, evidenced by the government's ability to easily track her phone. It further argues she is not a flight risk to the UK or France, noting she waived extradition rights and remained in the US following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death.
This document outlines a proposed $28.5 million bail package for Ghislaine Maxwell filed on December 14, 2020. The package includes a $22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by Maxwell and her spouse, secured by all their U.S. assets, and $5 million in additional bonds co-signed by friends and family (whose names are redacted). It also details a unique $1 million bond posted by a private security company intended to monitor her home confinement.
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues for the admissibility of evidence regarding minor victims' consent. It distinguishes the actual charges of "sexual activity" and "sex trafficking" from "sexual abuse," which is not charged. The document provides context by comparing the varying legal definitions of "minor" and ages of consent across different jurisdictions, including New York, Florida, the United Kingdom, France, and New Mexico.
This document, a page from a legal filing, discusses the challenges in legally defining and prosecuting sexual grooming. It examines various legal approaches in the United States, United Kingdom, Wales, and New Zealand, highlighting the difficulties in establishing a clear, measurable definition of grooming behavior. The text cites several academic sources and specific legal cases to illustrate the varied and often limited nature of laws designed to prevent this form of abuse.
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a portion of a government motion arguing against the defense's proposed jury instruction. The Government contends that the defense's instruction regarding sexual activity with 'Minor Victim-3' is wrong on the law and that the relevance of United Kingdom's age of consent law should be disregarded. The document also states that the Government has already provided the defense with discovery materials, including the identities of alleged co-conspirators, making the defense's request to preclude their statements baseless.
This document is a page from a Government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 29, 2021. It argues for the admissibility of the terms 'minor' and 'sexual abuse' regarding Minor Victim-3, noting she was 17 when sexual contact with Epstein began. The prosecution asserts that the defendant knew of Epstein's preference for underage girls and rejects the defense's request for jury instructions regarding United Kingdom law.
This document page discusses legal arguments regarding the admissibility of testimony from "Minor Victim-3" in a case involving Jeffrey Epstein and a defendant. The text argues against the defense's claim that such testimony would be unfairly prejudicial or cause confusion regarding United Kingdom law, asserting that jury instructions will be sufficient.
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a prosecution argument asserting that evidence related to the defendant's involvement with "Minor Victim-3" is admissible in court. The prosecution argues these actions are direct evidence of the defendant's role in a conspiracy to provide minors to Jeffrey Epstein for sexual abuse. The document dismisses the relevance of United Kingdom law and clarifies that this evidence is crucial for demonstrating the defendant's knowledge and participation in the scheme, even if a conviction cannot be based solely on this victim's testimony due to the statute of limitations.
This legal document is a court filing, page 50 of 84, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the defense's argument to dismiss allegations concerning "Minor Victim-3," claiming the defendant's conduct with her was lawful in the United Kingdom and that she was an adult when she was later abused by Epstein in the U.S. The defense contends the government mistakenly charged the defendant, believing Minor Victim-3 was a minor at the time of the alleged sex acts with Epstein.
This document is a page from a legal filing by attorney William Julié, dated March 23, 2021. It argues that France can legally deport individuals who have been stripped of their French nationality, using the case of Djamel Beghal as a primary example. Beghal, a dual French-Algerian citizen convicted of terrorism, was deprived of his French citizenship to facilitate his deportation to Algeria, a move intended to circumvent ECtHR prohibitions on removal to countries with a risk of torture.
This document is page 6 of a US Government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) opposing the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) third bail motion. The prosecution argues that the defendant's offer to renounce her French and British citizenships is "window dressing" and a strategic but meaningless gesture. The document cites correspondence with the French Ministry of Justice confirming that France will not extradite her because she held French nationality at the time of the alleged crimes (1990s and 2016), regardless of current renunciation. It further notes that while UK extradition is not barred by nationality, the process is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to extensive litigation.
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The prosecution contends that the defendant's offer to renounce her foreign citizenships (French and British) does not sufficiently mitigate the risk of her fleeing the country. The document argues the renunciation's validity is unclear and could be challenged later, and it cites a previous case (United States v. Cohen) where similar offers were deemed insufficient to assure the court that the defendant was not a flight risk.
This legal document is a court's opinion denying a defendant's third motion for bail. The court determines that the defendant remains a significant flight risk, and her new proposals—renouncing her French and British citizenship and placing assets under a monitor—are insufficient to ensure her future appearance. The court highlights the uncertainty and conflicting legal opinions surrounding the practical effect of renouncing French citizenship for a wanted individual.
This document appears to be page 297 from the book 'How America Lost Its Secrets' by Edward Jay Epstein (indicated by the filename 'Epst' and ISBN), processed as part of a House Oversight investigation. The text discusses the negative impact of Edward Snowden's leaks on U.S. and allied intelligence capabilities, specifically citing former Paris prosecutor François Molins and CIA official Michael Morell. It details how terrorist groups like ISIS shifted to end-to-end encryption (specifically Telegram) to evade PRISM surveillance and mentions the 2014 discovery of ISIS plans to use biological weapons (bubonic plague) against Western targets.
This document is a bibliography or reference list containing academic citations regarding the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), the Euro, and the economic implications for countries like Sweden and the UK. It lists various working papers, books, and articles published between 1997 and 2009. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it is part of a larger document production for a congressional investigation, likely related to economic policy or financial institutions.
This document appears to be a page from a personal essay, blog post, or manuscript discussing relationship psychology, specifically focusing on the concepts of 'arranged' vs. 'love' marriages and the role of uncertainty in attraction. The author references pop culture (Friends, Sex and the City) and Monica Ali's novel 'Brick Lane' to explore these themes, concluding with thoughts on 'strategic ambiguity' in flirting and briefly mentioning S&M. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was collected as part of a congressional investigation, though no specific connection to Epstein is visible in the text of this specific page.
This document appears to be page 8 of a larger report or collection (marked HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031841). It contains a geopolitical analysis written by Hamid Alkifaey regarding the stability of the Middle East, specifically focusing on relations between Israel, Egypt, and Syria. The text argues that war is unlikely in the near future but warns that small Islamic groups could hijack power from moderates if the free world does not actively support new democracies. The page concludes with a biographical note about the author.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity