Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
68 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Business associate |
15
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Client |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
12
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Client |
12
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Juror defendant |
12
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
12
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Alleged perpetrator victim |
11
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
55 | |
|
person
Judge Preska
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Defendant victim |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Financial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Association |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Friend |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 |
| 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-00019424.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 60) filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that if Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan's order via the 'collateral order doctrine,' the appellate court should instead issue a 'writ of mandamus' to modify the protective order. The document outlines legal precedents and the three specific conditions required to issue such a writ.
DOJ-OGR-00019421.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020. The author, likely representing Ms. Maxwell, argues that a protective order is appealable by citing precedent from cases like *Pappas* and *United States v. Salameh*. The filing refutes the government's argument by clarifying the focus of Ms. Maxwell's appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019420.jpg
This page from a legal document argues that an appeal by Ms. Maxwell should be heard before her criminal trial concludes, otherwise it will become moot. The argument centers on her need to share information with Judge Preska for an ongoing unsealing process, a situation the author distinguishes from legal precedents like Caparros and Pappas.
DOJ-OGR-00019419.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 20-3061 dated September 24, 2020, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, countering the government's position. The author argues that the government misinterprets and improperly relies on two precedent cases, United States v. Caparros (1986) and United States v. Pappas (1996), regarding the appealability of protective orders. The document specifically analyzes the Caparros case to demonstrate why it is distinguishable from Ms. Maxwell's current situation.
DOJ-OGR-00019415.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in an appeal related to the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The author argues that appealing Judge Preska's decision to unseal deposition material will be moot after a final judgment. The stated purpose of the appeal is to share redacted information, which Ms. Maxwell learned, with Judge Preska.
DOJ-OGR-00019413.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing from September 24, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's appeals. It outlines the procedural posture of two related appeals: one regarding Judge Preska's order unsealing deposition materials in the civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell), and the current appeal regarding Judge Nathan's denial of a motion to modify a criminal protective order. Maxwell has moved to consolidate these two appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00019412.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, describes a procedural issue in a case involving Ms. Maxwell. A criminal protective order issued by Judge Nathan prevented Ms. Maxwell from sharing critical information with Judge Preska regarding an unsealing process. Following Judge Preska's suggestion, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan to modify the order, seeking permission to share what she had learned under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00019409.jpg
This legal document from September 24, 2020, discusses judicial proceedings involving Ms. Maxwell. It notes that Judge Preska took over a case from the late Judge Sweet and describes how arguments by Ms. Maxwell to keep materials sealed were dismissed. The document also mentions a specific instance where Ms. Maxwell's motion to stay discovery in a related case, 'Farmer v. Indyke', was opposed by attorneys representing both Ms. Giuffre and plaintiff Annie Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00019405.jpg
This page outlines the statement of the case and facts regarding Ms. Maxwell, detailing a six-count superseding indictment involving conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein and perjury. It also summarizes the background of the civil defamation case Giuffre v. Maxwell, which was settled and dismissed in 2017.
DOJ-OGR-00019401.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 60, Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The filing's primary argument is that Judge Nathan incorrectly refused to modify a protective order, which would have allowed Ms. Maxwell to share sealed material information with Judge Preska. The document outlines the structure of the legal brief, including the case history, jurisdictional statements, and the specific points of the argument.
DOJ-OGR-00019397.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing dated September 23, 2020, related to Case 20-3061. It argues in favor of a motion to consolidate legal proceedings involving Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Giuffre, asserting that consolidation will not cause delay or circumvent Judge Nathan's prior orders. The text emphasizes that the Court has already scheduled oral arguments for both cases on the same day.
DOJ-OGR-00019395.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing dated September 23, 2020, arguing that the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell is directly related to the civil case involving Virginia Giuffre, specifically citing perjury allegations. It contends that the government has a strategic interest in not intervening in the civil case regarding the unsealing of an April 2016 deposition to argue that a 'Martindell' violation was harmless. The page contains significant redactions in the center.
DOJ-OGR-00019326.jpg
This document is the final page of a court order from the Southern District of New York, signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on August 12, 2020. The order addresses a request by Ms. Maxwell for a 'stay of the unsealing process,' stating that she may renew this request if the protective order in a parallel criminal action is modified to allow disclosure of relevant information. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00019323.jpg
A letter to Judge Loretta A. Preska from Laura A. Menninger regarding procedural requests for the unsealing of documents in the case involving Ms. Maxwell. The letter proposes amendments to the unsealing protocol to prevent errors, requests a 7-day window for appeals to the Second Circuit, and suggests a specific list of five docket entries for the next round of review.
DOJ-OGR-00019322.jpg
This document is a letter from Ms. Maxwell's legal counsel to Judge Loretta A. Preska requesting a temporary stay of the unsealing process and discussing procedural agreements. It outlines proposals to streamline the unsealing process, such as notifying non-parties simultaneously and shortening objection timelines for original parties, while also requesting a 15-page limit for future objections.
DOJ-OGR-00019299.jpg
This is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 17) from Case 20-3061, dated September 10, 2020. The text argues against modifying a protective order due to grand jury secrecy but argues that, based on the precedent of Brown v. Maxwell, Ms. Maxwell should be allowed to share information learned from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska. A significant portion of the page is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019298.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing dated September 10, 2020, related to Case 20-3061 (likely an appellate case involving Ghislaine Maxwell). The visible text discusses a dispute over a protective order where the government and Judge Nathan refused to allow Ms. Maxwell to share material facts with Judge Preska under seal. The document is heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019297.jpg
This document is a heavily redacted page from a legal filing in Case 20-3061, dated September 10, 2020. The only visible text argues that it is essential for 'Ms. Maxwell' to be able to share information with 'Judge Preska', indicating a point being made in a legal proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00019296.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 20-3061 dated September 10, 2020, argues for the consolidation of legal cases. The author contends that having separate panels for criminal and civil cases creates an unfair situation, and cites inconsistent rulings from judges in the Southern District of New York as having prejudiced Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019293.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 10, 2020, discussing the unsealing of deposition materials in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It details procedural history where Maxwell requested a stay on unsealing due to 'critical new information' she could not disclose because of a criminal protective order overseen by Judge Nathan. Judge Preska declined the stay but remained open to reevaluation if Judge Nathan modified the protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00019284.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 20-3061), explains the procedural constraints on Ms. Maxwell due to conflicting court orders. A criminal protective order from Judge Nathan prevents her from sharing critical information with Judge Preska in a related civil case. Consequently, Ms. Maxwell must file a redacted version of her Motion to Consolidate publicly, while the full, unredacted version can only be filed under seal in the criminal appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019101.jpg
This document is a transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on the relationship between Ghislaine Maxwell and Mr. Epstein during the 1990s and 2000s. Rodgers confirms that Maxwell maintained residences separate from Epstein and that, from his perspective, she always had an 'employment role' with him.
DOJ-OGR-00017213.jpg
Page 192 of a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) from the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text contains jury instructions defining 'reasonable doubt' and outlining the jury's duty to convict or acquit based on the evidence. It also introduces Instruction No. 9, explaining that an indictment is merely an accusation and not proof of guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00017211.jpg
This document is a page from a jury charge in the criminal case of Ms. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The instructions direct the jury to remain impartial, treating both the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, and the prosecution, the United States of America, as equals. It strongly emphasizes the legal principles of the presumption of innocence for the defendant and that the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rests solely with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00017180.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Court regarding defense attorney Ms. Menninger's closing summation. The prosecution argues that the defense improperly suggested to the jury that the government was using Ms. Maxwell as a substitute for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein.
| 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 |
Legal matters
The document alleges that all of Ms. Maxwell's legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system.
Needing something
Early on, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness by beeper if she needed something.
A booklet/checklist
Mr. Alessi recalls telling Ms. Maxwell that he would not confirm or do the work required by a booklet/checklist because it was too much work on top of his daily duties.
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.
Sex toys at Palm Beach house
Maxwell denied recalling sex toys at Epstein's house.
Civil Defamation Action
Testimony provided under oath involved in the perjury counts.
Civil Defamation Action
Testimony provided under oath involved in the perjury counts.
Recruitment of underage girls
Maxwell denied knowing about a scheme to recruit underage girls.
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