Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Romantic |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Adversarial defendant vs juror |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Accuser-3
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Alleged perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial defendant vs prosecutor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
LARRY
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Accomplice victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed co-conspirators
|
Alleged co conspirators |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-2
|
Alleged perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Assistance travel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Security Guard
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Implied co conspirator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
other alleged co-conspirators
|
Alleged criminal conspiracy |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Adam Mueller
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
John
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sarah Kellen
|
Professional supervisory disputed |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Defendant victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nicole Simmons
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell's lawyers
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's Sentencing Proceeding | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding circumstantial evidence and inferences. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Detention Hearing Decision | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Narrator arrives at Jeffrey's, goes to massage room where Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell are waiting... | Jeffrey's residence, massag... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Request by Daily News to unseal documents related to Ms. Maxwell's new trial effort. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Took Minor Victim-2 to a movie | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing regarding fines, restitution, and guideline calculations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Period when alleged events took place (described as 'over 25 years ago') | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing enhancements for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged massages of Epstein by Accuser-3 | England | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness duties regarding household preparation | Epstein Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flight to New Mexico | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Last bail hearing where the Court expressed concern about lack of ties. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Mr. Alessi regarding Ms. Maxwell's use of the telephone directory. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding Count Four | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell visited Mar-a-Lago for potential treatment. | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acts alleged in Count Four of the Indictment (Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexu... | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal Trial | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transportation of Jane in interstate or foreign commerce. | Interstate/International | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sighting of Virginia Roberts | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| N/A | N/A | Spa Check | Mar-a-Lago (Spa) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Three bail renewal hearings | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. It outlines the three legal conditions required for such a writ, citing precedents like 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.'. The document asserts that all three conditions are met, specifically claiming that Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and that the petitioner, Ms. Maxwell, has no other legal recourse, referencing her request to Judge Preska.
DOJ-OGR-00019603.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing for the ability to share sealed information with Judge Preska to litigate the "Martindell issue," which she claims the government improperly handled. As an alternative, the filing requests that the appellate court exercise mandamus jurisdiction to compel the district court to modify a protective order, citing legal precedent to support both arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00019602.jpg
This legal document is a filing in Ms. Maxwell's civil appeal, arguing against an order by Judge Preska to unseal her deposition. The core argument is that unsealing the deposition would prejudice her ability to properly litigate the government's conduct (the 'Martindell' issue) before Judge Nathan in her separate criminal case. The document refutes the government's characterization of her argument, stating she is not asking the appeals court to rule on the merits of the criminal case issue, but rather to preserve the status quo to protect her Fifth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00019600.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues that an appeal will become moot if Ms. Maxwell is not immediately allowed to share information with Judge Preska for an unsealing process. The filing distinguishes the current situation from the precedent set in the 'Pappas' case, arguing that the nature of the protective order in that case was different. The core issue is the timing of information sharing and its effect on the legal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019599.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, related to Case 20-3061. The author argues that the current case, involving Ms. Maxwell, is distinct from the legal precedent set in the 'Caparros' case. The key distinction made is that while the defendant in Caparros sought to make documents public, Ms. Maxwell seeks to provide documents to judicial officers, such as Judge Preska, under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00019597.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, concerning Case 20-3061. It presents a legal argument distinguishing the current appeal from *Flanagan v. United States*, asserting that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding Judge Nathan's order is comparable to a bail reduction motion because the harm (unsealing deposition materials) would be irreversible ("the cat is irretrievably out of the bag") if not addressed immediately. The text argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share information from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska to prevent the unsealing order from going into effect without reconsideration.
DOJ-OGR-00019593.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically an appeal, related to Case 20-3061. The appellant, Ms. Maxwell, challenges a district court order by Judge Nathan that denied her request to share information with another judge. The filing argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review this order under the collateral order doctrine, countering the government's contention that the order is unreviewable.
DOJ-OGR-00019588.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing from September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. Ms. Maxwell's legal counsel requests permission to file several documents under seal, including an unredacted opening brief, Appendix Volume 2 (which is entirely confidential), and a response to the government's opposition. The document notes that the government does not oppose this motion.
DOJ-OGR-00019587.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in which Ms. Maxwell requests permission from the court to be excused from publicly filing a redacted version of 'Appendix Volume 2'. The justification is that the appendix and related briefs contain confidential information shielded by a criminal protective order. The filing connects this request to two ongoing appeals she has filed: one against an order by Judge Nathan and another against an order by Judge Preska in the related case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, with a consolidated oral argument scheduled for October 13.
DOJ-OGR-00019579.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated August 24, 2020, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The letter argues that his client, Ms. Maxwell, has demonstrated good cause to present a discrete set of sealed materials to judicial officers, countering that any argument of compromising grand jury secrecy is 'absurd'. Pagliuca asserts that the government has failed to provide a valid reason for withholding this information from other judicial officers.
DOJ-OGR-00019576.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is page 3 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues against the U.S. Government's position, refuting the claim that materials Ms. Maxwell seeks to file under seal are 'Confidential' or would compromise a 'secret' investigation. The filing cites legal precedent and states that the subpoena recipient is already aware of the information in question.
DOJ-OGR-00019572.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues for the continued sealing of certain court documents, with redactions, to protect Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial from pretrial publicity. The filing references the government's own public statements about its ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's associates as evidence of the high-profile nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019568.jpg
This legal document, dated August 17, 2020, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues for modifying a Protective Order, claiming that the 'partial secrecy' surrounding materials from a grand jury subpoena has undermined the fairness of the legal process. The document states that this secrecy unfairly disadvantages Ms. Maxwell and leaves critical questions about government communications unanswered.
DOJ-OGR-00019564.jpg
Page 2 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 17, 2020. The document discusses the handling of materials marked 'Confidential' by the government, with the defense (Maxwell) arguing that these are 'judicial documents' with a presumptive right of public access, citing Brown v. Maxwell. Large portions of the factual history and footnotes are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019499.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2020, is a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding a protective order in the criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. The government argues that restrictions on the use of discovery materials—prohibiting their use in civil proceedings or posting online—should apply not only to Ms. Maxwell and her defense but also to the government's potential witnesses and their counsel. This is requested due to concern that witnesses, who are involved in separate civil litigation with Maxwell, will use the discovery materials to support their civil cases or in public statements.
DOJ-OGR-00019494.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, details arguments following Ghislaine Maxwell's detention hearing. It heavily features comments from David Boies, a lawyer for an accuser named Farmer, who criticizes Maxwell's potential 'blame the victim' defense strategy as counterproductive. Boies recounts his client's allegations, including a story about how Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein allegedly lured a 16-year-old girl named Annie to a ranch in New Mexico with fraudulent promises.
DOJ-OGR-00019492.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that her right to a fair trial has been prejudiced by public statements made by the prosecution. It specifically cites a press conference held by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss following Maxwell's July 2, 2020 arrest, quoting her statements to the New York Law Journal and the Washington Post as evidence of prejudicial commentary on Maxwell's credibility and guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00019439.jpg
This legal document from Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020, contains two certifications related to a court filing. Adam Mueller certifies that a brief complies with federal court rules regarding word count (7,343 words) and formatting, while Nicole Simmons certifies that she filed 'Ms. Maxwell’s Opening Brief' with the court and served it to all counsel of record via the CM/ECF system.
DOJ-OGR-00019437.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The author argues that the Court should overturn a district court's decision, which would allow Ms. Maxwell to share information from her criminal case (under Judge Nathan) with Judge Preska in her civil case. The filing contends that the government's argument to prevent this sharing lacks a principled justification.
DOJ-OGR-00019434.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, argues that the government strategically chose not to intervene to prevent the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's depositions. The filing suggests this inaction allows the government to later claim any violation of a prior ruling was harmless. It supports its argument by citing legal precedents, such as 'Louis Vuitton' and 'SEC v. Boock', which warn of the dangers for defendants who waive their Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00019431.jpg
This document is page 32 of a legal filing (dated Sept 24, 2020) arguing against the unsealing of deposition material. The text contends that unsealing the material would prevent Judge Preska from reconsidering her decision based on new information about how the government obtained the material, and would prejudice Ms. Maxwell's ability to argue before Judge Nathan that perjury counts should be dismissed due to the government's circumvention of the 'Martindell' precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00019429.jpg
This legal document describes the predicament of Ms. Maxwell, who is involved in both a civil and a criminal case presided over by two different judges, Judge Preska and Judge Nathan. A protective order in the criminal case, issued by Judge Nathan, prevents her from sharing relevant information with Judge Preska in the civil case. Her requests to both judges to resolve this issue have been denied, placing her in what the document calls a 'Catch-22 situation'.
DOJ-OGR-00019428.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The text argues that the government failed to follow proper procedures to access court-protected documents from a civil case. It highlights Ms. Maxwell's unique position as the only individual involved in all six related judicial proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019426.jpg
This document is a legal filing, likely part of an appeal brief, dated September 24, 2020. The filing argues that the appellate court should overturn Judge Nathan's decision and modify a criminal protective order. The purpose of the modification is to allow Ms. Maxwell to share sealed information with Judge Preska regarding how the government obtained her deposition transcripts, which Judge Preska is considering unsealing.
DOJ-OGR-00019425.jpg
This document is page 21 (filed as page 26) of a legal brief in Case 20-3061, filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that a writ of mandamus is appropriate because Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and Judge Preska's unsealing order relies on inconsistent decisions within the Southern District of New York. The text discusses the unsealing of deposition materials and claims prejudice against Ms. Maxwell, though specific details are heavily redacted.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $10,000,000.00 | Bequest from estate | View |
| N/A | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Court | $0.00 | Judge intends to impose a fine. | View |
| N/A | Received | Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $10,000,000.00 | Bequest listed as an asset | View |
| N/A | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Government/Victims | $0.00 | Restitution (Government is not seeking restitut... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Unspecified | $0.00 | Sale of 69 Stanhope Mews and purchase of Kinner... | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $0.00 | Purchase of a large townhouse. | View |
| N/A | Received | Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $23,000,000.00 | Transfer of funds confirmed by bank statements. | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Court/Government | $0.00 | Discussion regarding a court-imposed fine and M... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | the government | $0.00 | Judge intends to impose a fine; amount not spec... | View |
| 2021-03-22 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Attorney Escrow A... | $0.00 | Funds for legal services presently held in atto... | View |
| 2021-02-23 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Court | $0.00 | Proposed bond (amount not specified on this pag... | View |
| 2021-02-23 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Escrow | $0.00 | Money currently held in escrow for legal fees. | View |
| 2020-12-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | N/A | $22,000,000.00 | Reported assets in support of bail application. | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | N/A (Reporting) | $3,800,000.00 | Assets reported by Maxwell in July 2020 | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | N/A | $3,800,000.00 | Assets reported by Ms. Maxwell in July 2020 | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | N/A | $22,000,000.00 | Assets reported in support of bail application. | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Received | Unknown | Ms. Maxwell | $0.00 | Deal closed for leasehold property. | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Mr. and Mrs. O'Neill | $0.00 | Closing of the deal for property sale. | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Received | Unknown | Ms. Maxwell | $0.00 | Contracts exchanged for leasehold property. | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Paid | Ms. Maxwell | Mr. and Mrs. O'Neill | $0.00 | Exchange of contracts for property sale. | View |
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Declaration and notice of motion to withdraw
HMF served a copy of the declaration and notice of motion to withdraw on Ms. Maxwell via her new counsel, Mr. Markus.
Newspaper
Received a copy of the New York Times issued in October.
Confirmation of decision not to testify
Judge asks Maxwell directly if it is correct that she has decided not to testify.
Attorney Glassman
A letter from Ms. Maxwell's side regarding the testimony of Attorney Glassman.
Exhibit List
Counsel hand-delivered and deposited exhibit list in the MDC legal mailbox.
Waiver Form Review
Attorneys read the waiver form to Maxwell and received authorization to sign on her behalf.
Request for production of discovery materials
Ms. Maxwell sent a detailed letter requesting the production of discovery materials under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Brady v. Maryland, and Giglio v. United States. The Government has not yet responded.
Denial of stay
Judge Preska declined to stay the unsealing but offered to reevaluate if Judge Nathan modified the protective order.
Request to stay unsealing process
Maxwell asked for a stay claiming awareness of critical new information but could not disclose details due to a protective order.
Request for leave to be excused from publicly filing a re...
This document is a filing by Ms. Maxwell requesting permission to not publicly file a redacted version of Appendix Volume 2, citing confidential material under a criminal protective order related to two ongoing appeals.
Modification of protective order
Request to share information with other judicial officers under seal.
No Subject
Ms. Maxwell used the phone subscribed to "Terramar Project, Inc." to make calls as late as May 2020.
No Subject
Ms. Maxwell used the phone subscribed to 'Terramar Project, Inc.' to make calls as late as May 2020.
Civil Defamation Action
Testimony provided under oath involved in the perjury counts.
Sex toys at Palm Beach house
Maxwell denied recalling sex toys at Epstein's house.
Recruitment of underage girls
Maxwell denied knowing about a scheme to recruit underage girls.
Civil Defamation Action
Testimony provided under oath involved in the perjury counts.
Civil Depositions
Two civil depositions where Maxwell allegedly made materially false statements.
Epstein investigation
Ms. Maxwell called an individual living outside of Sydney to inform them that Mr. Epstein was being investigated and that if they refused to cooperate, they'd be 'taken care of'.
Request for call back
"TELL HIM TO CALL ME"
Called but not very important
At 7:44 AM, Ms. Maxwell called for Mr. Epstein, leaving a message that the call was not very important.
Called, not important
A message for Mr. Epstein from Ms. Maxwell, taken at 7:44 AM, stating she "CALLED BUT NOT VERY IMPORTENT".
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity