UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LocationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
61
Very Strong
|
255 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
22
Very Strong
|
33 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
20
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
person
TOVA NOEL
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
18 | |
|
person
Michael Thomas
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
18 | |
|
person
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
AUDREY STRAUSS
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Lara Pomerantz
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
TOVA NOEL
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
ALEX ROSSMILLER
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Lara Pomerantz
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
ANDREW ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Alison Moe
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Plaintiff defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Alison Moe
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
AUDREY STRAUSS
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-07-08 | Legal filing | Filing of a superseding indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2020-07-05 | Court filing | The U.S. Government filed a memorandum in support of the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2020-07-02 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 2, an ORDER, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Filing of Document 16 (Sealed Indictment) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Filing of Indictment Document 4 | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Filing of the Superseding Indictment S1 20 Cr. 330. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Filing of The Government's Memorandum in Support of Detention. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Ghislaine Maxwell | Remote via video (District ... | View |
| 2020-06-29 | N/A | Indictment filed against Ghislaine Maxwell. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-06-28 | Legal filing | The Government filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) renewed mo... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2020-06-25 | Legal filing | The Government filed its memorandum in opposition to the defendant's renewed motion for release. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2020-04-24 | N/A | Deadline for Government to file opposition | USDC SDNY | View |
| 2020-04-10 | Legal filing deadline | Deadline for the Government to file its opposition to the motion to dismiss. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Ghislaine Maxwell was indicted for her participation in a sex trafficking scheme. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Indictment | Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell was indicted for her participation in a scheme to entice, transport, ... | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | View |
| 2019-12-16 | N/A | Filing of Protective Order in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT | New York, New York | View |
| 2019-11-19 | Legal filing | An Appearance Bond was filed for defendant Tova Noel in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, setting a $100,000... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2019-08-29 | Legal event | A nolle prosequi was filed to dispose of the criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2019-08-21 | N/A | Mandate Issued withdrawing the appeal | New York, NY | View |
| 2019-08-21 | N/A | Filing of FRAP 42 STIPULATION, with prejudice | Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit | View |
| 2019-08-21 | Legal proceeding | The court ordered the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Jeffrey Epstein, based on a stipulation fi... | Thurgood Marshall United St... | View |
| 2019-08-21 | N/A | Filing of stipulation withdrawing appeal pursuant to FRAP 42 | New York, NY | View |
| 2019-08-20 | N/A | Filing of FRAP 42 Stipulation with Prejudice (Signed Stipulation to Withdraw Appeal) | Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit | View |
| 2019-08-05 | N/A | Notice of Appearance as Additional Counsel filed on behalf of Appellee USA | Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit | View |
| 2019-07-31 | N/A | Conference held in the matter of USA v. Jeffrey Epstein | Southern District of New York | View |
018-02.pdf
This document (18-2) contains two legal certificates filed on February 14, 2020, in Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF. The first is a Certificate of Admission from the Supreme Court of Illinois certifying attorney Mary Sharon DiRago is in good standing and was admitted in 2004. The second is a Certificate of Good Standing from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for the same attorney.
EFTA00031733.pdf
This document is a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights regarding the case of Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom, concerning the extradition of six terrorism suspects (including Abu Hamza) to the United States. The applicants argued that extradition would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the risk of solitary confinement at ADX Florence and the possibility of grossly disproportionate life sentences. The Court unanimously ruled that extradition would not violate Article 3, finding that conditions at ADX Florence and the potential sentences did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
EFTA00016784.pdf
This document is a legal opinion by French attorney William Julié, dated December 18, 2020, submitted in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for release. Julié argues against the US government's position that France would not extradite Maxwell because of her French citizenship. He contends that under the US-France Extradition Treaty and the EU-US Agreement, France retains the discretion to extradite nationals and, unlike the 2007 Hans Peterson case, would likely do so in Maxwell's case.
EFTA00014574.pdf
This document is a photograph of the front cover of a blue United States of America passport. The cover features the Great Seal of the United States. There is a redaction bar at the very top of the cover. The image is marked with the evidence file number EFTA00014574 in the bottom right corner.
DOJ-OGR-00001267.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum written by French attorney William Julié on March 14, 2021, filed in the US v. Maxwell case. It argues against a French Ministry of Justice assertion, stating that France could legally extradite Ghislaine Maxwell if she renounces her French citizenship, which she stated she is prepared to do to secure bail. The memo aims to counter the argument that her French nationality creates an insurmountable flight risk due to non-extradition policies.
DOJ-OGR-00002202.jpg
This letter from the French Ministry of Justice, dated December 11, 2020, is addressed to the U.S. Department of Justice via its Liaison Magistrate in Paris. It formally explains that French law absolutely prohibits the extradition of any individual who was a French national at the time an alleged crime was committed. The letter contrasts this with the practices of Anglo-Saxon countries like the U.S. and clarifies that when extradition is denied on these grounds, French courts are empowered to prosecute the individual under the principle of 'aut tradere, aut judicar' (either extradite or prosecute).
DOJ-OGR-00002202(1).jpg
This letter, dated December 11, 2020, is from the French Ministry of Justice to the U.S. Department of Justice. It clarifies that French law, specifically Article 696-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, absolutely prohibits the extradition of any individual who was a French national at the time an alleged crime was committed. The letter contrasts this with the legal practices of Anglo-Saxon countries like the United States, which may extradite their own nationals.
DOJ-OGR-00002138.jpg
This document is a legal opinion by attorney William Julié analyzing the potential outcome of an extradition request from the United States to France for Ghislaine Maxwell, should she flee there. The analysis focuses on the general bars to extradition under French law, particularly the requirement for French courts to consider human rights violations in the requesting state. The author concludes it is highly unlikely that French authorities would refuse to enforce an extradition decree for Maxwell, despite her French citizenship.
DOJ-OGR-00002129.jpg
This document is a table of contents for a legal analysis prepared by attorney William Julié, filed on December 14, 2020. It outlines the steps of the French extradition procedure and analyzes the potential outcome of an extradition request from the United States for Ghislaine Maxwell, focusing on French law and the extradition treaty between the two countries.
DOJ-OGR-00002126.jpg
This document is a legal opinion written by French attorney William Julié regarding the extradition of French nationals to the United States. It was requested by Olivier Laude on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team to support bail proceedings, arguing that French law permits extradition to the US and that Maxwell intends to waive her rights to fight such extradition in French courts. The document serves to assure US authorities that Maxwell would not be shielded by French non-extradition principles if she were released on bail and fled to France.
DOJ-OGR-00002099.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, outlines the extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States. It specifies that the process is governed by the UK's Extradition Act 2003 and a bilateral treaty signed in 2003, which designates the U.S. as a 'Part 2 territory'. This designation exempts the U.S. from the standard requirement to provide prima facie evidence when requesting an extradition from the UK.
DOJ-OGR-00009977.jpg
This document is a page from an index for a legal transcript in the case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. The page covers keywords alphabetically from 'set' to 'step', providing the page and line numbers where each term appears in the full transcript. The document was prepared by Southern District Reporters and is marked with the identifier DOJ-OGR-00009977.
DOJ-OGR-00009967.jpg
This document is a single page from an index of a court transcript for the case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. The page provides an alphabetical list of keywords from 'informed' to 'jurors' and cites the page and line numbers where these terms appear in the full transcript. The document was prepared by Southern District Reporters and is marked with the identifier DOJ-OGR-00009967.
DOJ-OGR-00009944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on her credibility, exploring her past actions as a juror for a Mr. Okula, her understanding of financial matters from an expert named Dr. DeRosa, and her failure to disclose a prior disciplinary suspension from the Bar Association during jury selection. The transcript also reveals personal details, such as her husband being a convicted felon, which are used to challenge her character and motivations.
DOJ-OGR-00009295.jpg
This document is page 86 of a 130-page index for a court transcript from the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. It alphabetically lists keywords from 'production' to 'recovery' and provides the specific page and line numbers where these terms appear in the full transcript. The document is identified by the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009295 and was produced by Southern District Reporters.
DOJ-OGR-00020102.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum signed by Philippe Jaeglé of the French Office for the International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. It explicitly clarifies that under the 1996 Bilateral Extradition Treaty and French law, France 'systematically refuses' to extradite its own nationals to the United States, noting this is a principle deviated from only within the European Union. This document is significant in the context of the Epstein case as it outlines the legal barrier that prevented the US from extraditing French associates like Jean-Luc Brunel.
DOJ-OGR-00020099.jpg
This document is a formal letter from the French Ministry of Justice to the US Department of Justice, dated December 11, 2020. It explicitly clarifies French law regarding extradition, stating that France is absolutely prohibited from extraditing its own nationals, including dual citizens (likely referencing Jean-Luc Brunel or Ghislaine Maxwell in the context of the Epstein investigation). It further explains that while extradition is refused, France retains jurisdiction to prosecute these individuals domestically under the principle of 'aut tradere, aut judicare' (extradite or prosecute).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019112.jpg
This document is the copyright page (dated October 2016) for a book by James Patterson (identified by ISBN 978-0-316-27405-0 as 'Filthy Rich'). It contains standard publishing details from Little, Brown and Company. On the facing page, there is a fragment of an interview transcript between an interviewer and Jeffrey Epstein. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it is part of a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020842.jpg
This document is a presentation slide deck titled 'USA Inc.' dated February 2011, created by the venture capital firm KPCB (Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers). It outlines a financial analysis of the United States government treated as a business entity, listing sections on income statements, balance sheets, and turnaround strategies. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020478.jpg
This document is a section from a report (likely House Oversight) discussing Chinese influence operations at the state and local government level. It details a specific case study from 2017-2018 where a mid-Atlantic US city formed a sister city partnership with a Chinese town, highlighting how pro-CCP language was inserted into the agreement despite warnings from experts about Beijing's influence tactics. **Note:** While requested as an 'Epstein-related' document, the text strictly concerns US-China relations and local government influence, with no mention of Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029351.jpg
This document is a screenshot of a Facebook post from 'The Comical Conservative' viewed on a mobile device. The post contains a political joke involving President Obama attempting to cash a check at a Chicago bank without identification. The image includes a Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029351' at the bottom, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity