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 | Legal hearing | A detention hearing held by the district court where the government argued Ms. Maxwell was a flig... | district court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan denied motion to modify criminal protective order. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | An alleged conspiracy that Ms. Maxwell is accused of being a member of. The document outlines the... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The alleged transportation of Jane in interstate commerce for the purpose of illegal sexual activ... | interstate / across state l... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell moved to consolidate appeals. | Appellate Court | View |
| N/A | Conspiracy | The Indictment charged a conspiracy between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell during a discrete tim... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the government's burden of proof at Ms. Maxwell's upcoming trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Change in travel pattern | Ms. Maxwell began spending less time flying on Mr. Epstein's planes. | Mr. Epstein's planes | View |
| N/A | Arrest | Arrest of Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Initial bail hearing for Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | The document describes the third element of 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Ac... | Across state lines | View |
| N/A | Recruitment | The defendant, Ms. Maxwell, recruited Virginia, which set a recruitment scheme in motion. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A judge overrules objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to paragraphs 79 and 81 of a doc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The criminal trial of Ms. Maxwell, where she is the defendant. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ongoing civil litigation between Ms. Maxwell and many of the government's potential witnesses. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Arrest | Ms. Maxwell's arrest, which occurred prior to the date of this document. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell where the government insists on the secrecy of discovery ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's prosecution, which she argues was barred by a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). | District Court | View |
| N/A | Visit | Mr. Epstein would visit the Palm Beach house, sometimes without Ms. Maxwell and sometimes bringin... | Palm Beach house | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal act | Transportation of an individual (Jane) across state lines for the purpose of illegal sexual activ... | across state lines | View |
| N/A | Grand jury investigation | The government conducted a grand jury investigation and issued subpoenas without notifying Ms. Ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Flight | A flight for Jane to return to Palm Beach, allegedly arranged by Ms. Maxwell. | From New York to Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Trip | The witness was instructed by either Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell to pick up Virginia Roberts. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Visit | Virginia brought her boyfriend to Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home. Ms. Maxwell told the witness... | Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home | View |
| N/A | Visit | Towards the end of the witness's stay, Virginia brought two other unidentified girls to Mr. Epste... | Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001987.jpg
This legal document is part of a motion arguing for bail for Ms. Maxwell. It refutes the court's initial reasons for denying bail by listing the court's findings—such as lack of family ties, unclear finances, and being a flight risk due to her French citizenship—and claims that new evidence demonstrates these concerns are unfounded. The document asserts that this new evidence, which could not be presented at the initial hearing, proves that reasonable bail conditions can be set to ensure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001986.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the reconsideration of a bail decision for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (United States v. Lee, Bradshaw, Rowe, and Petrov) to establish that the Court has the inherent authority to reopen a bail hearing, especially when new evidence is presented. The filing asserts that Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial new information, including over 2.7 million pages of discovery from the government, which was unavailable at her initial hearing and raises questions about the strength of the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00001982.jpg
This legal document is part of a renewed bail application for Ms. Maxwell, submitted by her defense team. It presents new evidence to the Court, including letters of support from her spouse and friends, a detailed financial report from Macalvins Limited showing assets of approximately $22.5 million for a proposed bond, and statements to counter the government's narrative that she was a flight risk. The defense argues this new information, unavailable at the initial hearing, demonstrates her strong ties to the U.S. and justifies her release on bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001975.jpg
This document is page 'ii' (page 3 of 45 in the PDF) of a court filing dated December 14, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains the final entries of a Table of Contents, specifically referencing an argument regarding 'Oppressive Conditions' of confinement affecting Maxwell's health and legal defense, followed by the Conclusion section.
DOJ-OGR-00001974.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, dated December 14, 2020. The filing argues for the reconsideration of a court's bail decision concerning Ms. Maxwell, proposing she be granted bail under strict conditions. The arguments outlined include her deep family ties, her devotion to her spouse, financial transparency, and claims that she was not hiding from authorities but rather protecting herself from media and physical threats.
DOJ-OGR-00001965.jpg
This document is page 88 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on December 10, 2020, detailing the judge's rationale for denying bail to Ghislaine Maxwell. The court argues that Maxwell poses a significant flight risk due to her foreign connections and potential to evade monitoring, distinguishing her situation from other high-profile financial crime defendants like Madoff and Esposito. The page concludes with the defense introducing the COVID-19 pandemic as an argument for release.
DOJ-OGR-00001964.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 10, 2020, argues against granting bail to the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The prosecution or court contends that her significant financial resources, demonstrated sophistication in hiding herself and her assets following the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, and her extraordinary capacity to evade detection make her a flight risk. The document concludes that even a bail package with electronic monitoring would be insufficient to ensure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001963.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 10, 2020, regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rules that Maxwell poses a 'substantial actual risk of flight' and that no conditions of release would be sufficient to assure her presence. The judge notes that Maxwell failed to provide a full accounting of her financial situation and that her proposed bail package, secured by a foreign property, was insufficient given her resources.
DOJ-OGR-00001962.jpg
This legal document from December 10, 2020, details a court's analysis of arguments from Ms. Maxwell's defense. The court dismisses the defense's claim that Maxwell is not a flight risk, finding her pre-indictment contact with the government insignificant and distinguishing her case from the legal precedent of U.S. v. Friedman. The court also suggests that Ms. Maxwell may not have fully grasped the severity of the charges against her until after she was formally indicted.
DOJ-OGR-00001958.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 10, 2020, is a transcript from a court proceeding regarding a bail determination. The government argues for the detention of the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, not on the basis of her being a danger to the community, but solely on her being an alleged flight risk. The text specifies that the government has the burden of proving this flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001956.jpg
This document is page 79 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. It captures the conclusion of the defense counsel's argument requesting strict bail conditions rather than detention, followed immediately by the Judge beginning to deliver their ruling. The Judge outlines the legal standards for detention, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and stating that detention is based on risk of flight or danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00001946.jpg
This is page 69 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 10, 2020. Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney is arguing before the judge regarding her continued detention, stating that the government's cited case law regarding COVID-19 risks involves dangerous felons and is not relevant to Maxwell's situation. The attorney emphasizes the impossibility of preparing for trial with only four months of discovery while unable to meet the client in person due to BOP restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00001931.jpg
This document is page 54 of a court transcript filed on December 10, 2020, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues that the defense had previously urged the government not to indict and had made it clear they were available for voluntary surrender, yet the government arrested Maxwell without prior contact. Cohen notes that the government was fully aware that his firm and Haddon Morgan represented Maxwell, and he criticizes the prosecution for trying to 'throw some more dirt' on his client in a reply brief.
DOJ-OGR-00001916.jpg
This document is a page from a victim's statement in a legal proceeding against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 10, 2020. The speaker describes Maxwell as a manipulative predator, expresses extreme fear that Maxwell will flee and silence witnesses, and recounts a past death threat made against their child to prevent testimony. The speaker passionately implores the court not to grant bond to Maxwell, arguing she has no remorse and will continue to harm victims if given the opportunity.
DOJ-OGR-00001902.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. A prosecutor argues that the defendant is a significant flight risk due to the serious nature of the charges, which involve an alleged long-term scheme of abusing minors with Jeffrey Epstein, and her recent efforts to conceal her whereabouts in New England. The judge then interrupts to question an attorney, Ms. Moe, about a specific assertion made by the defense concerning Ms. Maxwell's contact with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00001872.jpg
This legal document, filed by counsel for Ms. Maxwell, argues that her pretrial detention conditions are excessively punitive and amount to de facto solitary confinement. The filing details sleep deprivation, constant surveillance, and frequent, invasive body scans and strip searches, asserting these measures are detrimental to her health and ability to prepare for trial. The counsel contrasts these conditions with those of other clients, including those charged with terrorism and murder, to highlight their unprecedented severity.
DOJ-OGR-00001857.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated November 30, 2020, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, requesting permission to file a redacted bail application for Ms. Maxwell. The author argues that redactions are necessary to protect the privacy and safety of third parties, such as financial sureties, from the intense media speculation that would follow any disclosure of their identities. The letter cites legal precedent and the privacy protections previously afforded to Ms. Maxwell's accusers as justification for the request.
DOJ-OGR-00001811.jpg
This legal document is a letter from defense counsel Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated October 23, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's case. The letter complains that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) are severely hindering Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare her defense by preventing counsel from reviewing documents with her effectively during legal visits. The defense requests the Court to order the BOP to allow them to pass legal papers to Ms. Maxwell for review and suggests a status conference to address these ongoing issues.
DOJ-OGR-00001797.jpg
This legal document, dated October 14, 2020, is a filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues that the prosecution must disclose evidence from victims abused by Epstein after 1997, claiming this evidence is exculpatory under the Brady rule because it contradicts the government's theory that Maxwell was Epstein's sole "madam" and principal facilitator. The filing also details how the perjury charges against Maxwell originated from her depositions in a 2015 defamation lawsuit brought by a victim identified as "Accuser-1."
DOJ-OGR-00030602.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript dated July 26, 2017. In it, a witness describes the staff and companions who traveled with an unnamed male subject, identifying chefs Adam Perry and Didier, and a personal assistant named Annie Taylor. The witness emphasizes that Ms. Maxwell traveled with the subject most frequently, describing her role ambiguously as 'Girlfriend, whatever it was. Boss,'.
DOJ-OGR-00030560.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal transcript dated July 26, 2017. An unidentified witness describes a former job, confirming that Ms. Maxwell was the girlfriend of an unnamed male at that time. The witness explains that they left the demanding job, which had hours from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m., after being diagnosed with polycythemia, a form of blood cancer.
DOJ-OGR-00021775.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal for Ms. Maxwell, argues that there is insufficient evidence to prove she supervised Sarah Kellen in any criminal capacity. It cites testimony from witnesses Kimberly Espinoza and Carolyn, who state that Kellen's employment with Epstein began after Maxwell and Epstein had already separated. The document concludes by requesting that Ms. Maxwell's convictions be reversed or the case be remanded to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00021767.jpg
This legal document argues that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing unreasonable limitations on the questioning of Juror 50 during a post-verdict hearing. The filing contends that this prevented the defense for Ms. Maxwell from fully exploring the juror's potential bias, which was evidenced when he disclosed his own history of sexual assault to fellow jurors, thereby influencing their deliberations and the final verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021759.jpg
This legal filing argues that the District Court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Ms. Maxwell. The author contends the court ignored key evidence from the OPR and improperly applied a rule of construction, ultimately failing to resolve ambiguities in the agreement in favor of Ms. Maxwell as required by law. The document cites precedent from the Second Circuit to support the necessity of such a hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021757.jpg
This legal document discusses an unusual co-conspirator clause in a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein. It reveals that Epstein's defense team initially proposed a broad immunity deal to protect third parties, including "four named female assistants" and other employees like Ms. Maxwell, from any future criminal charges related to the federal investigation. The Government found this proposal "unusual" and countered with a more limited offer confined to the Southern District of Florida.
| 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 |
Detention conditions
Ms. Maxwell filed written complaints through internal prison procedures to her unit counselor, the warden, and the regional office to seek remediation for her conditions, but to no avail.
Legal Emails
MDC allegedly prematurely deleted legal emails.
Something that happened between her move from a large apa...
The document references prior conversations between the witness (Rodgers) and Ms. Maxwell, which are the basis for a question from the attorney.
Something that happened between her move from a large apa...
The document references prior conversations between the witness (Rodgers) and Ms. Maxwell, which are the basis for a question from the attorney.
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.
Request for permission to share information
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Denial of request
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
Denial of stay
Judge Preska denied Ms. Maxwell's request for a stay, stating there was no factual basis.
Events in Ms. Maxwell's life, including her father's deat...
The transcript details a court examination where the witness, Rodgers, is asked about conversations they had with Ms. Maxwell regarding when she moved between various apartments and a townhouse after her father's death.
Setting up massage appointments
Carolyn testified that Ms. Maxwell would call her to arrange massage appointments, which was considered important evidence for sex trafficking charges.
Request to stay unseal proceedings
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Preska to stay the unseal proceedings to allow her to get permission to share confidential information from a criminal case.
Household duties
Ms. Maxwell gave the witness, Juan, many instructions on how to perform his duties, including cleaning the house, serving, managing the kitchen, preparing shopping lists, and maintaining cleanliness.
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.
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.
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.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
Ms. Maxwell's assets
An interview conducted after Ms. Maxwell's arrest where she reported her assets from memory, stating she believed she had approximately $3.8 million in assets.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity