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 | Organization closure | The TerraMar Project was closed after Epstein’s death to spare her partners from invasion of priv... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The upcoming trial for which the government is seeking pre-trial notice of evidence from the defe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Roberts talked to a young girl. The girl and Ms. Maxwell then went inside a s... | spa | View |
| N/A | Bail application | Ms. Maxwell has a renewed bail application, which is being supported by several individuals (sure... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | The witness (Alessi) saw the same girl from the spa arrive at a house and introduced her to Ms. M... | the house in Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial for which jurors were being selected, where the central issue was the credibility of ac... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Medical procedure/inspection | Immediately after receiving two nasal swab COVID tests, Ms. Maxwell was required to remove her ma... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Erasure of data | All of Ms. Maxwell’s legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | A jury selection process in White Plains that is alleged to have resulted in the systematic under... | White Plains | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Argument being made in favor of granting bond to Ms. Maxwell. | United States | View |
| N/A | Proposed action | Ms. Maxwell proposed to renounce her British and French citizenship. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Surveillance | Ongoing 15-minute light surveillance / disruptive flashlight surveillance of Ms. Maxwell's sleepi... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Threat | The MDC has threatened to place Ms. Maxwell in the SHU. | MDC | View |
| N/A | Proposed action | Ms. Maxwell proposed to place her and her spouse's assets into a monitored account. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Targeting of a person | The defendant identified and targeted a person named Virginia after seeing her in the Mar-a-Lago ... | Mar-a-Lago parking lot | View |
| N/A | Targeting of a person | The defendant worked with Epstein to identify and target a person named Jane. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A trip to New Mexico involving Jane and the defendant. Flight logs showed the defendant was present. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A renewed bail application was submitted for Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A previous bail hearing where the Court expressed concern that Ms. Maxwell lacked significant fam... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The government's case against Ms. Maxwell, which is alleged to be based entirely on the testimony... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the scope of a trial, arguing that introducing certain evidence about gove... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal act | Ms. Maxwell allegedly enticed Jane to travel across state lines with the intent that she would en... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Flight | Visoski describes his general duties during flights on Mr. Epstein's planes, including assisting ... | Mr. Epstein's private planes | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | A questioner (Q) conducts a direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi (A), regarding his recogn... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The transportation of Jane across state lines by Ms. Maxwell, with the alleged purpose of engagin... | Interstate commerce (across... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020862.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 3153) involving a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion centers on a jury note and whether a supplemental instruction is needed to clarify that conduct occurring solely in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a violation of New York law (specifically regarding Count Four). The Judge rejects the defense's proposed instruction as incorrect, noting that the defense did not previously seek to exclude testimony or request a limiting instruction regarding the New Mexico evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00020853.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 27, 2021, regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Court's response to a jury note was incorrect and prejudicial, citing Second Circuit case law regarding the importance of accurate instructions during jury deliberations. A footnote clarifies the defense's position on the jurisdictional requirements of the conspiracy counts, specifically regarding intent and the location of sexual activity (New York) involving individuals under 17.
DOJ-OGR-00020851.jpg
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The author argues that for a conviction on Count Four, the jury must only consider evidence related to the violation of New York Penal Law concerning the transportation of 'Jane' from Florida to New York. The document stresses that any conduct that occurred in New Mexico is irrelevant to this specific charge, citing a statement by the government during the trial to support this point and avoid jury confusion.
DOJ-OGR-00020850.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 27, 2021, regarding the trial of Ms. Maxwell. It argues that without specific jury instructions, there is a risk of 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' from the S2 Indictment, citing case law (Gross, D'Amelio, Wozniak) to define the constitutional protections against convicting a defendant on charges not specified in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00020841.jpg
This court transcript excerpt captures a legal discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court regarding a jury's question on 'aiding and abetting'. The conversation centers on the legal requirements for finding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty in relation to arranging travel to New Mexico. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury instruction requires the travel to have a 'significant or motivating purpose' across state lines, rather than focusing solely on who arranged the transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00020832.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the appeal or trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 22-1426) containing jury instructions (Charge). It details the legal requirements for proving Counts Two and Four, specifically focusing on the transportation of a minor ('Jane') across state lines for illegal sexual activity. The instructions clarify that the government must prove Maxwell knew Jane was under 17 and that the failure to actually accomplish the sexual activity is not a defense if the intent was present during transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00020831.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Charge) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details Instruction No. 21 regarding Count Four, which charges Maxwell with transporting an individual under 17 ('Jane') across state lines for illegal sexual activity in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The judge instructs the jury that the government must prove Maxwell's intent and knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, though the illegal activity need not be the sole purpose of the transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00020826.jpg
This document is a page from court transcripts (Jury Instruction No. 20) regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the legal elements for 'Count Four,' specifically the charge of transporting an individual ('Jane') under the age of 17 in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity between 1994 and 1997. The instruction clarifies that Maxwell did not need to physically transport the victim herself, but that making arrangements, such as purchasing tickets, satisfies the legal requirement.
DOJ-OGR-00020825.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (specifically jury instructions) filed on February 28, 2023, as part of Case 22-1426 (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal). It details Instruction No. 18 and 19 regarding 'Count Four,' which charges transportation of a minor (under 17) in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity. The text outlines the legal elements the government must prove under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(a), specifically noting the requirement to prove Ms. Maxwell laid intent for the individual to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00020597.jpg
This legal document is a letter from attorney John M. Leventhal to a court, dated July 28, 2022. Leventhal requests an extension to file an Appellant's Brief until January 30, 2023. The justification for the request is the necessity of a meeting with his client at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn and his obligations to other clients, including a Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00020551.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket in Case 22-1426, dated July 8, 2022, detailing several filings from November 19, 2021, related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries consist of letters and orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan concerning evidentiary matters, including the admissibility of Government Exhibit 52 and the anticipated testimony of a witness referred to as 'Accuser-3' and 'Witness-3'. The court orders address motions to exclude evidence and outline the process for redacting sensitive information, with a key focus on testimony about Maxwell's relationship with Mr. Epstein and her alleged role in facilitating sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00018974.jpg
This document is a transcript of court testimony from August 10, 2022, where a witness named Rodgers, identified as a pilot for Jeffrey Epstein, is questioned about Epstein's and Ms. Maxwell's travel between 1994 and 2004. Rodgers states that Epstein almost always flew private, except for occasional Concorde flights to Europe, and that his plane was down for maintenance annually. The witness also testifies that Ms. Maxwell possessed a 'Raytheon Travel Air card' which allowed her to charter private jets.
DOJ-OGR-00018973.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers describes a large townhouse in Manhattan, the nature of the relationship between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein between 1991 and 2004 as changing from romantic to not romantic, and the process by which Ms. Maxwell would provide 24-72 hours notice for flights on Mr. Epstein's planes via beeper or cell phone.
DOJ-OGR-00018970.jpg
This document is a transcript of a sidebar conference during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense (Mr. Everdell) argues against admitting evidence regarding the death of Maxwell's father and her subsequent move to a smaller apartment, claiming it predates the alleged conspiracy by three years. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) argues this evidence is relevant to establish motive, specifically that Maxwell was not wealthy and participated in crimes with Jeffrey Epstein in exchange for financial support, including the purchase of a large townhouse.
DOJ-OGR-00018968.jpg
This document is a transcript of testimony from a witness named Rodgers, filed on August 10, 2022. Rodgers describes his interactions with Ms. Maxwell between 1991 and 2004, which included communicating by beeper and cell phone, and seeing her at an office and on Mr. Epstein's airplanes. The witness details personally visiting four of Ms. Maxwell's New York City residences (on 59th, 84th, and 65th Streets, plus a studio on the Upper East Side) to annually service first aid kits for her.
DOJ-OGR-00018856.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about scheduling a future court session, with the judge suggesting evening or weekend dates to avoid conflicting with the jury. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, also makes a formal request to the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to communicate about her testimony with another witness, who is Jane's younger sibling and is also under subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00018848.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on the witness's claim that she previously saw a photograph of a nude and pregnant Ms. Maxwell in Epstein's house.
DOJ-OGR-00018845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on discrepancies between lawsuits she filed against Epstein and Kellen in 2008-2009 and a subsequent claim she made to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn denies adding a 'Ms. Maxwell' to her fund request and, after her memory is refreshed, clarifies she was awarded $2,804,000, not the suggested amounts of $3.25 million or $3.9 million.
DOJ-OGR-00018837.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on establishing that during her therapy with Dr. Susan Pope (2002-2003) and a meeting with Dr. Serge Thys, she never mentioned a 'Ms. Maxwell'. The questioner also suggests that Carolyn's story has changed significantly since 2007-2009 and questions her contact with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00018812.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to introduce paragraphs 207 and 208 regarding Sarah Kellen as impeachment evidence, but the Court sustains the objection. The judge rules the paragraphs inadmissible, distinguishing them from prior evidence because they do not mention Ms. Maxwell or other unnamed employees.
DOJ-OGR-00018796.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the cross-examination context of a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that there are factual omissions in the complaint compared to the witness's live testimony, specifically noting that the witness testified to 'penetration and intercourse by Epstein,' which was not included in Paragraph 8 of the complaint. The Judge questions Pagliuca on his theory of inconsistency versus omission and prepares to hear from prosecutor Ms. Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00018794.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 held without the jury present between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the admissibility of a 'state complaint' (Exhibit C4). The defense argues that the complaint should be admitted to show that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was not mentioned in it, while the prosecution objects on the grounds that this fact is not inconsistent with the witness's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018780.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a previous legal complaint filed on Carolyn's behalf by an attorney named Mr. Willits in state court; specifically, Pagliuca establishes that this 91-page, 209-paragraph complaint did not contain a single mention of Ms. Maxwell's name.
DOJ-OGR-00018779.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning references Carolyn's prior deposition testimony, where she affirmed her trust in her attorneys regarding a complaint she filed. The transcript concludes with Carolyn confirming that the complaint she filed in federal court was not against a Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018713.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. She testifies that Ms. Maxwell paid her $300 in cash after she engaged in a "sexualized massage" with Jeffrey Epstein. Carolyn also states she received lingerie as a gift from Epstein, delivered via a FedEx package with a return address from Manhattan, New York, to her home in West Palm Beach.
| 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 Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
Discovery in Giuffre v. Maxwell
Two depositions designated confidential.
Video conference
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
Phone Message
Telephoned. (No specific message text written)
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
Withdrawal of HMF
Mr. Markus informed HMF that he discussed HMF's withdrawal with Ms. Maxwell, and she consents to it.
Civil Deposition
Testimony where the judge concluded dishonesty/perjury occurred.
Discovery relevant to motions
Ms. Maxwell asked the government for documents relevant to these motions, but was denied.
Needs/requests
Communication via beeper if she needed something
Defense Preparation
Reference to Maxwell's need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for defense.
Press approaching the house
The security guard radioed Ms. Maxwell to alert her that he believed the press was on the grounds and approaching the house.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
In-person legal conference
Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Legal Emails
MDC allegedly prematurely deleted legal emails.
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Location tracking
Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.
General communication
Communication via cell phones
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Divorce
Discussed divorce to create distance and protect him from consequences of association.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity