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-00005338.jpg
This document is page 16 of a juror questionnaire for the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 22, 2021. The questions are designed to screen potential jurors for pre-existing knowledge, biases, and opinions about Ghislaine Maxwell and her associate Jeffrey Epstein, based on media they may have consumed or discussions they may have had. The document also includes annotations indicating legal objections and proposed changes from both the defense and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00005335.jpg
This document is a proposed juror questionnaire from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 22, 2021. It includes a section on 'Media Issues' which is contested by the government and defended by the defendant. The defendant's response argues for in-depth questioning about media exposure, citing legal precedents like the Tsarnaev case to emphasize the necessity of uncovering potential juror bias in high-profile cases involving individuals like Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005312.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 22, 2021. It contains questions designed to determine if a potential juror has prior knowledge of Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein and whether that knowledge would prevent them from being fair and impartial. The questions also probe whether a juror's personal experiences, as indicated in previous answers, would affect their ability to serve.
DOJ-OGR-00005311.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the criminal case of Ms. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated October 22, 2021. It contains a series of questions for a potential juror to assess their ability to follow fundamental legal instructions, such as the presumption of innocence, avoiding media reports and independent research, and to confirm their availability for the trial scheduled between November 29 and January 15.
DOJ-OGR-00005298.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for a legal case, filed on October 22, 2021. The questions are designed to determine if a potential juror can remain impartial, specifically asking about their prior knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. It probes whether any pre-formed opinions or knowledge of Ms. Maxwell's alleged association with Epstein would interfere with their ability to render a fair verdict based solely on trial evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00005296.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for a legal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on October 22, 2021. The questionnaire assesses potential jurors' prior knowledge and opinions regarding 'Ms. Maxwell', acknowledging the case has received significant media attention and asking about any preconceived notions of her guilt or innocence.
DOJ-OGR-00002685.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal defense filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on Feb 4, 2021. The text argues that the indictment fails to establish a conspiracy charge regarding 'Accuser-3' because there is no evidence of interstate or foreign travel (a requirement for federal jurisdiction), noting that the alleged incidents took place in England. Additionally, the defense argues that any charges related to Accuser-3 are time-barred by the statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00002682.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, summarizes the allegations against Ms. Maxwell from an indictment. It details four counts related to violations of the Mann Act between 1994 and 1997, including substantive violations and conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein and others. The allegations specify that Maxwell enticed and caused 'Accuser-1' to travel from Florida to New York for illegal sex acts with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002677.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 146) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The filing outlines arguments to strike references to 'Accuser-3' from the indictment, claiming they are surplusage, irrelevant to the alleged conspiracies, and unduly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. Alternatively, it argues the Government should be required to demonstrate the admissibility of evidence regarding Accuser-3.
DOJ-OGR-00020349.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court regarding her client, Ms. Maxwell, an inmate at the MDC. Sternheim argues against the MDC's threat to move Maxwell to the Special Housing Unit (SHU), claiming she needs protection from staff, not other inmates. The letter also formally requests the Court to order the MDC to stop the disruptive 15-minute flashlight surveillance of Maxwell while she sleeps.
DOJ-OGR-00020332.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated May 17, 2021, arguing against the mistreatment of Ms. Maxwell, specifically regarding sleep deprivation and accusations about hygiene. The defense argues that the government misrepresented facts by claiming Maxwell caused a smell in her cell by not flushing, while the defense asserts the smell was due to MDC infrastructure issues. This claim is supported by testimony from another inmate, Tiffany Days, who described a 'feces flood' at the facility.
DOJ-OGR-00020331.jpg
This legal document argues that the government misrepresented information to the court regarding the treatment of inmate Ms. Maxwell. The government initially claimed that flashlight checks every 15 minutes were a routine procedure, but later admitted in a letter that Ms. Maxwell is the only inmate subjected to this treatment. The document contends this is a form of mistreatment being justified without proper evidence, such as an affidavit.
DOJ-OGR-00020319.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on April 7, 2021. It details complaints regarding Maxwell's confinement conditions at the MDC, including delayed legal mail, unreadable discovery discs, moldy food, sleep deprivation due to lighting and flashlight checks, and 'de facto solitary confinement.' The filing also argues that inadequate computer access hinders her ability to review millions of pages of discovery for her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00020311.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the defense counsel for Ms. Maxwell, arguing for a continuance (postponement) of her trial scheduled for July 12, 2021. The defense claims that the challenges of preparing for the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the need to review voluminous discovery and investigate new allegations, make it impossible to be ready by the scheduled date. The filing refutes the government's assertion of trial readiness and details the extensive work still required for an adequate defense.
DOJ-OGR-00005779.jpg
This legal document is a motion arguing for the exclusion of certain evidence in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The defense claims that a photograph of Maxwell found at Jeffrey Epstein's house (Exhibit 313) and a "Household Manual" dated 2005 (Exhibit 606) are irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. The document cites legal standards, such as Rule 401, to argue that this evidence has no bearing on the case and was created outside the timeframe of the alleged indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00005773.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing submitted on October 18, 2021, by the attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorneys request that the court issue an order preventing all trial participants from referring to the accusers as "victims" or "minor victims." They argue that using such terms would violate Ms. Maxwell's presumption of innocence and lessen the government's burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00005772.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Document 395) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The text presents legal arguments citing various case precedents to contend that the prosecution and the Court should not refer to accusers as 'victims' or 'minor victims.' The filing argues that such terminology improperly influences the jury, implies guilt before a verdict, and specifically prejudices the charge regarding whether Maxwell knew the accusers were underage.
DOJ-OGR-00005762.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion arguing to exclude evidence of an alleged rape committed by Mr. Epstein from the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The argument posits that such evidence is not part of the charged conspiracy (which is limited to securing "sexualized massages"), is highly inflammatory and unduly prejudicial, and would confuse the jury, leading to a conviction on an improper emotional basis. The document cites several legal precedents to support the exclusion of this evidence under Rule 403.
DOJ-OGR-00005761.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on October 29, 2021, presents an argument to exclude testimony about Mr. Epstein allegedly raping 'Accuser-1' from Ms. Maxwell's trial. The filing contends that such evidence is irrelevant to the specific charges against Maxwell and that its potential for creating unfair prejudice against her substantially outweighs any probative value, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403.
DOJ-OGR-00005742.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, dated October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The defense argues that a photographic identification of Ms. Maxwell conducted on June 23, 2021, was suggestive and tainted, and therefore should be suppressed by the Court. The argument cites several U.S. Supreme Court cases to support the claim that the procedure violated the defendant's right to due process.
DOJ-OGR-00005730.jpg
This document details an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, focusing on investigative measures taken by police officers, including subpoenas and a search warrant at Epstein's residence. It describes the involvement of several redacted individuals, one of whom was introduced to Epstein, performed a massage, and recruited other girls at his request, later cooperating with police for a lesser charge. The document also clarifies Ms. Maxwell's non-involvement with purported victims and her absence during the search warrant execution, with seized materials being turned over to the United States Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00005729.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is part of the case against Ms. Maxwell. It argues for the exclusion of evidence obtained from a 2005 search of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence, citing issues with authentication and relevance. The document also details a separate Palm Beach Police investigation from 2005, noting that Ms. Maxwell was never a target and that an alleged victim in that investigation eventually admitted to contact with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005727.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 391) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The filing outlines arguments against the admissibility of evidence from "The Palm Beach Investigation" due to lack of authenticity. It also argues that the absence of a "Detective Recarey" infringes upon "Ms. Maxwell's" constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00005719.jpg
This legal document argues that certain proffered documents cannot be authenticated as required by Federal Rules of Evidence. The filing suggests the documents, which surfaced in 2009, were likely manipulated or manufactured by Mr. Rodriguez, a former employee of Mr. Epstein, in an attempt to secure a $50,000 payment. The document asserts there is no evidence linking the creation or maintenance of these documents to Ms. Maxwell or any other credible source.
DOJ-OGR-00005708.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, presents an argument against introducing evidence of alleged false statements (perjury counts) in Ms. Maxwell's trial. The filing contends that such evidence would substantially prejudice the jury by introducing unrelated allegations, risk the disqualification of her counsel, and create a distracting side-show, thereby jeopardizing her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The arguments heavily rely on the Court's reasoning from a prior severance ruling.
| 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 |
Travel arrangement for Jane
The document mentions an incident where 'allegedly Ms. Maxwell got on the phone and somehow arranged for Jane to get back to Palm Beach'.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
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