Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Lawyers
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Adversarial defendant accuser |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged co conspirators |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Adversarial defendant accuser |
6
|
1 | |
|
location
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Identity |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Adversarial defendant accuser |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Adversarial defendant accuser |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Balde
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Perpetrator victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
potential witnesses
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Martin
|
Indirect |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Accused alleged victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Farmer
|
Accused accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
friends and family
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Criminal conspiracy alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Accomplices |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
sureties
|
Financial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Judge
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Hierarchical professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
attorneys
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Adversarial |
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-00002220(1).jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell requesting release on bail. It argues against the government's assertion that she is a flight risk, citing her proposed bail package and extradition waivers, and claims the government's standard is impossibly high. The filing also uses the recent surge of COVID-19 cases at the MDC and the suspension of her legal visits as further justification for her release, arguing her constitutional rights are being eroded.
DOJ-OGR-00002219(1).jpg
This legal document argues against the government's position on the extradition of Ms. Maxwell. It presents expert opinions from Mr. Julié on French law and David Perry on UK law to contend that extradition from France is permissible under the existing treaty and that resisting extradition or obtaining bail in the UK would be highly unlikely. The document refutes the government's reliance on a 2006 case as precedent and clarifies the limited discretion of the Secretary of State to deny extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00002218(1).jpg
This legal document is a filing by Ms. Maxwell's defense, arguing that she is not a flight risk. The defense refutes the government's interpretation of her actions (like buying a home with a trust) as evidence of intent to flee, claiming they were for protection. It also argues that her willingness to waive extradition rights to France and the UK shows her commitment to facing charges, countering the government's claims about French extradition law.
DOJ-OGR-00002217(1).jpg
This legal document is part of a defense argument for Ms. Maxwell's bail application. The defense counters the government's assertion that she is a flight risk by highlighting a proposed 'substantial bail package' backed by her, her spouse, and co-signers, which would create severe financial consequences for them if she were to flee. The document also refutes the government's characterization of Ms. Maxwell as an expert at hiding and clarifies financial details regarding her spouse's assets.
DOJ-OGR-00002216.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing against the government's characterization of her finances. The defense contends that Ms. Maxwell has been transparent about her assets, including those shared with her spouse, and that the government's claims of her having 'unrestrained funds' to flee are untrue. The document refutes accusations of hiding assets by pointing to disclosures on joint tax returns and the difficulty of liquidating certain funds.
DOJ-OGR-00002215.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues for her release on bond. It refutes the government's claims by explaining that a pre-arrest discussion of divorce with her spouse was a strategic measure to protect him, not a sign of a weak relationship. The document further asserts that Ms. Maxwell has fully disclosed her and her spouse's finances and accuses the government of baselessly claiming she was deceptive rather than challenging the accuracy of the financial report.
DOJ-OGR-00002213.jpg
This legal document, part of a filing in the case against Ms. Maxwell, argues that the government's case is weak and relies entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of three accusers, with two key counts depending on a single witness, Minor Victim-1. The defense asserts that the case was hastily assembled only after the death of Jeffrey Epstein, suggesting a lack of substantial, pre-existing evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002213(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues that the government's case against her is weak and was assembled after Jeffrey Epstein's death. The defense contends the case rests entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of three accusers, with two specific counts relying on a single witness, Minor Victim-1. The filing dismisses the government's 'additional witnesses' as irrelevant, claiming their testimony only confirms that Maxwell and Epstein interacted with minors, which proves nothing.
DOJ-OGR-00002211(1).jpg
This document is a preliminary statement arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell on bail, detailing a proposed bond package secured by her and her spouse's net worth and backed by seven additional sureties. The defense argues that Maxwell is being held to an unfair standard due to her association with Jeffrey Epstein and contends that the government's evidence is weaker than represented.
DOJ-OGR-00002208(1).jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 103) in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 23, 2020. The filing outlines arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell for bail, countering the government's case by highlighting her substantial ties to the U.S. (including her spouse), her financial disclosures, and the unlikelihood of extradition refusal from France or the UK, while also citing a COVID surge at MDC as further justification.
DOJ-OGR-00002105.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, analyzes arguments against Ms. Maxwell's extradition, specifically addressing claims of political motivation, abuse of process, and the impact of the passage of time. It asserts that it is highly unlikely Ms. Maxwell could establish bad faith by the US prosecutor or that her extradition is politically motivated or oppressive. The document cites various legal precedents to support the view that the public interest in honoring extradition arrangements and trying serious allegations outweighs potential personal hardship or the passage of time since the alleged offences (1994-1997).
DOJ-OGR-00002074.jpg
This document is the concluding page of a report filed in a legal case on December 14, 2020. The author states they have reviewed a Financial Condition Report covering the assets of Ms. Maxwell and her husband from 2015-2020, had full access to necessary documents, and questioned the 'Macalvins accountants'. The author concludes that the report is a complete and accurate summary of the assets.
DOJ-OGR-00002017.jpg
This document is the signature page of a legal filing from December 4, 2020, in which attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell formally request her release on bail. The document lists her legal counsel from three different law firms: COHEN & GRESSER LLP, HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C., and the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim. The filing is part of case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN and was officially filed with the court on December 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00002014.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues that her pretrial detention conditions at the MDC are excessively punitive and inappropriate. Her counsel asserts these conditions—including de facto solitary confinement and constant surveillance—are an overreaction to Epstein's death, are disproportionate for a non-violent detainee, and are impeding her ability to prepare a defense. The document references multiple unsuccessful attempts by counsel to remedy the situation through communication with the MDC, its legal department, and prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00002012.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, argues for the approval of a proposed $28.5 million bail package for defendant Ms. Maxwell. It contends that this package is more than sufficient to ensure her appearance in court by comparing it to the less restrictive bail conditions of other high-profile defendants with significant financial means and foreign citizenships. A table is provided to illustrate these precedents, detailing bond amounts and conditions for defendants such as Madoff, Khashoggi, and others.
DOJ-OGR-00002010.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing (Document 97) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 14, 2020. The defense argues that the discovery provided by the government lacks contemporaneous evidence (emails, texts, diaries, police reports) implicating Maxwell in the alleged 1994-1997 conspiracy and claims that existing police reports are exculpatory rather than incriminating. Large portions of the text, specifically appearing to detail specific evidence or lack thereof, are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002008.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the defense for Ms. Maxwell, arguing that the discovery evidence provided by the government fails to corroborate the allegations against her. The defense claims that despite the government's initial assertions at a bail hearing, the vast majority of the documents produced are from a time period well after the alleged conspiracy (1994-1997) and contain no meaningful corroboration.
DOJ-OGR-00002005.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 97) dated December 14, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell should be granted bail conditions involving an extradition waiver, citing legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) where such waivers were accepted as assurances against flight. The document states Maxwell has obtained expert reports from French and UK experts (specifically David Perry regarding the UK) concluding that she would be unable to resist extradition back to the US if she fled to those countries after signing a waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00002004.jpg
This document is page 32 of a defense filing (Document 97) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text argues that Maxwell is not a flight risk due to intense media scrutiny, the global pandemic, and her willingness to sign irrevocable extradition waivers for the UK and France. It cites legal precedent (US v. Cirillo) supporting the use of extradition waivers as a condition for release.
DOJ-OGR-00002002.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was not attempting to evade arrest. It explains that her retreat to a safe room was a standard security protocol initiated after her guard mistook approaching FBI agents for the press. The document further contends that she wrapped a cellphone in tin foil to prevent press access after her number was leaked, not to evade law enforcement, citing that the phone was registered to her charity and that she used another, uncovered phone as her primary device.
DOJ-OGR-00002001.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues that she did not attempt to avoid arrest. The defense counters the government's claims by stating they would have arranged for a self-surrender if asked and that her actions during the arrest, such as moving to an interior room and having a phone wrapped in tin foil, were pre-arranged security measures to protect her from the press, not to evade law enforcement. This claim is supported by a newly obtained statement from the head of her security company.
DOJ-OGR-00001998.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, presents evidence of violent online threats against Ghislaine Maxwell, including specific quotes calling for her death. It argues that intense media attention, exemplified by a threatening reaction to a news report of her being in Massachusetts, made it impossible for her to live a quiet life. A statement from Maxwell's spouse is included, linking the media frenzy to dangerous conspiracy theories like QAnon and describing the feeling of being constantly stalked, which led to her decision to leave her home.
DOJ-OGR-00001996.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell should be granted bail. It contends she was not hiding from the government but was protecting herself and her family from intense media scrutiny and physical threats that escalated dramatically after Jeffrey Epstein's arrest in July 2019. The filing asserts her financial transparency, citing joint tax returns and financial reports, and uses media analytics from LexisNexis to demonstrate the spike in press coverage as evidence for her need for privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00001994.jpg
This legal document outlines the financial activities of Ms. Maxwell from 2015 to 2020, detailing a significant shift of her assets. It notes her net worth in 2015 was over $20 million, the sale of a $15 million NYC property, her marriage in 2016, and the subsequent transfer of the majority of her assets to her spouse via a trust. By 2019, all assets in the trust were distributed to her spouse, placing them under his control.
DOJ-OGR-00001991.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on a $22.5 million bond. It details that her spouse is pledging all his assets (three properties worth ~$8 million) and that friends and family, including one individual pledging her entire $1.5 million retirement 'nest-egg', are acting as sureties. The text emphasizes the financial devastation these individuals would face if Maxwell fled, arguing this guarantees her compliance.
| 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 |
Non-legal personal matters
Her non-legal phone calls are monitored in real time, and information from them was used by staff to confront her about a personal matter (the death of someone close to her).
Upcoming flight information
After beepers were no longer used, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via cell phone to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
CorrLinks emails
Ms. Maxwell's CorrLinks emails were allegedly erased by guards.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
Upcoming flight information
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via beeper to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
Video conference
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
Defense Preparation
Reference to Maxwell's need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for defense.
Discovery in Giuffre v. Maxwell
Two depositions designated confidential.
Phone Message
Telephoned. (No specific message text written)
Needs/requests
Communication via beeper if she needed something
General communication
Communication via cell phones
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Location tracking
Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.
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.
Discovery relevant to motions
Ms. Maxwell asked the government for documents relevant to these motions, but was denied.
In-person legal conference
Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
Legal consultation
Guards are described as feverishly writing while observing Ms. Maxwell during videoconferencing with her counsel.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity