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 | Incarceration | Ms. Maxwell was subjected to presentence incarceration, including solitary confinement, before be... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Indictment | A second superseding indictment was issued, which introduced new charges and is used as a basis f... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal hearing | A potential future bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to seek depending on the Seco... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Confinement | Ms. Maxwell is being held in de facto solitary confinement with harsh conditions, including guard... | prison/jail | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential unsealing of deposition material by Judge Preska. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal event | Ms. Maxwell was convicted on three of four Mann Act counts: Count Four and two conspiracy charges... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Court filing arguing against an aggravating role enhancement for Ms. Maxwell under USSG § 3B1.1. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Criminal offense | Criminal offenses involving 'Jane' and Annie Farmer. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Detention | Ms. Maxwell served the entirety of her pretrial detention during the COVID-19 pandemic under extr... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Argument that Juror No. 50 provided intentionally false answers to Questions 25 and 48 during voi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Personal event | The witness recalls waiting in a car for Ms. Maxwell to finish a massage. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Arrest | Ms. Maxwell's arrest is mentioned as an event that occurred prior to discussions about divorce. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Discussion | Ms. Maxwell and her spouse discussed getting a divorce prior to her arrest as a way to protect him. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A civil appeal by Ms. Maxwell regarding Judge Preska's order to unseal deposition material. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal case against Ms. Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A legal argument is being made to prevent the introduction of evidence of alleged false statement... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Court's initial order denying bail to Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's initial detention hearing. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal trial is being discussed, with arguments made against including perjury counts due to ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A Post-Verdict Hearing where the court limited the scope of questions for Juror 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Personal decision | Ms. Maxwell made the decision to separate from her spouse and leave her home due to intense media... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial in which Ms. Maxwell is the defendant. This document provides instructions to th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An unsealing process overseen by Judge Preska, for which Ms. Maxwell seeks to share information. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Move | Ms. Maxwell moved from a large apartment on 59th Street to a studio apartment. | Manhattan | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's trial, which resulted in a jury verdict that is now being challenged. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021756.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was intended to provide broad immunity to co-conspirators. It cites a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report where Epstein's counsel stated Epstein wanted to be the sole person to take blame. The document also notes that at the time of the agreement, the Government believed it lacked specific evidence against individuals like Ms. Maxwell, despite having interviewed accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00021750.jpg
This document is a legal brief from a court case, dated July 27, 2023, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues that her sentence was erroneous due to a miscalculation and an unsupported four-point enhancement. The brief also contends that Ms. Maxwell is a third-party beneficiary of a non-prosecution agreement that should have barred the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and requests that her conviction be reversed or the case be remanded.
DOJ-OGR-00021749.jpg
This legal document is a preliminary statement in reply for an appeal by Ms. Maxwell. She argues that her prosecution was barred by a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and that the District Court erred in its handling of ambiguities related to it. Additionally, she contends the court abused its discretion regarding Juror 50, citing the juror's false answers on a questionnaire and concealed past trauma as grounds for a valid challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00021745.jpg
This document is a page from the Table of Contents (page ii) of a legal appeal filed on July 27, 2023. It outlines arguments regarding procedural errors by the District Court, specifically concerning the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding bias and the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The page specifically references Case 22-1426.
DOJ-OGR-00021744.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. The filing presents two main arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell: first, that a non-prosecution agreement makes her a third-party beneficiary and bars the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and second, that the District Court erred by not removing Juror 50 for cause after the juror provided dishonest testimony and concealed information about being a victim of child sex abuse during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021646.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) recording the final moments of a hearing involving Ms. Maxwell. The Judge clarifies the fine guidelines ($20,000 to $200,000 per count), thanks the counsel, the victims who provided statements, and the government before adjourning the session.
DOJ-OGR-00021644.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. During the proceeding, Maxwell's attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that Maxwell be designated to the BOP women's facility in Danbury and enrolled in the FIT (Female Integrated Treatment) program to address trauma. The Court agrees to make this recommendation and subsequently grants the government's motion, presented by Ms. Moe, to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight.
DOJ-OGR-00021643.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that a bequest in a will mentioned by the court is 'unactualized' and Maxwell has received nothing. The Court acknowledges this but concludes Maxwell has 'additional assets' sufficient to pay the fine and proceeds to formally impose the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021642.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a sentencing hearing dated June 29, 2023. The judge orders the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to serve five years of supervised release and pay a $750,000 fine, rejecting her claim of inability to pay by citing a $10 million bequest she received from Epstein. The judge also imposes a mandatory special assessment and notes that the government is not seeking restitution or forfeiture.
DOJ-OGR-00021641.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. The judge sentences Ms. Maxwell to 240 months (20 years) in prison, followed by five years of supervised release, noting her lack of remorse but following the Probation Department's recommendation. The total sentence is composed of concurrent sentences for three different counts.
DOJ-OGR-00021638.jpg
This document is a page from a sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge is discussing sentencing factors, noting her age (over 60), lack of prior convictions, and the government's admission that she is not a continuing danger, while balancing this against her 'decade-long pattern of predatory activity.' The text also references mitigation arguments regarding her difficult family history (overbearing father, death of brother) and her charitable works and tutoring of inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00021637.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a judge is explaining the rationale for sentencing Ms. Maxwell. The judge states the sentence must be substantial to reflect the severity of her crime, the harm caused, and to serve as a general deterrent for similar offenses. The judge also emphasizes that the rule of law applies equally to everyone, regardless of wealth or social status, and that 'nobody is above the law'.
DOJ-OGR-00021632.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. The judge confirms with defense counsel, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Moe, that there are no objections to the supervised release conditions recommended by the Probation Department. The judge also clarifies that although Count Six involves mandatory restitution, the government's position is that none should be ordered because all victims have already been compensated.
DOJ-OGR-00021628.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a sentencing hearing for Ms. Maxwell, dated June 29, 2023. The speaker, likely defense counsel, argues for leniency by highlighting Ms. Maxwell's positive contributions while incarcerated at the MDC, such as tutoring fellow inmates, and points to her age and lack of prior criminal history. While acknowledging the 'terrible conduct' for which she is being sentenced, the speaker emphasizes her client's good deeds and lack of danger to society.
DOJ-OGR-00021627.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a sentencing hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 29, 2023. The speaker, likely her defense counsel, argues for a reasonable sentence by citing mitigating factors from her life. These factors include the traumatic accident and death of her eldest brother, the overwhelming influence of her 'narcissistic' father, and the 'controlling, demanding, manipulative' influence of Jeffrey Epstein on her adulthood.
DOJ-OGR-00021625.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. Attorney Sternheim is speaking on behalf of her client, Ms. Maxwell, addressing the court and Judge Nathan. Ms. Sternheim acknowledges the courage of the victims and argues against the government's request for a sentence of 'multiple decades in prison' for Ms. Maxwell, who is nearly 61 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00021600.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a procedural discussion about the order of statements. Counsel Ms. Moe asks the Court's preference for when victims should speak, and the Court outlines the sequence as government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell. After confirming no objections from counsel, the Court calls for a luncheon recess until 1:00.
DOJ-OGR-00021599.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the sentencing hearing) for Ms. Maxwell. The judge rejects the defense's claim that Maxwell is indigent, citing her previous report of $22 million in assets and a lack of documentation regarding her marriage or divorce settlement, and states an intention to impose a fine. The judge also notes that the government is not seeking restitution and prepares to discuss sentencing guidelines after a lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00021598.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (related to Case 22-1426) involving the sentencing or fining of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of specific assets in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), specifically citing a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge notes that despite Maxwell's claim of inability to pay, she had significant assets, including $3.8 million reported in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00021577.jpg
This document, a legal transcript from June 29, 2023, discusses a criminal case, specifically focusing on the roles of Ms. Maxwell and Sarah Kellen. It analyzes trial testimony from Carolyn and Juan Alessi, concluding that Sarah Kellen replaced Ms. Maxwell in scheduling massage appointments, rather than being supervised by her. The text emphasizes a 'clear break' in their respective responsibilities.
DOJ-OGR-00021554.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, details a court's decision to overrule objections in Case 22-1426. The objections concerned the defendant's identification and isolation of minor girls, and a scheme developed by the defendant and Epstein to recruit girls for sexualized massages. The court found that trial evidence and testimony from witnesses like Annie and Jane supported the existence of this recruitment scheme, which involved a chain of recruitment from the defendant to Virginia, then to Carolyn, and further to Carolyn's friends.
DOJ-OGR-00021552.jpg
This court transcript page, dated June 29, 2023, documents a judge overruling several objections from attorney Mr. Everdell. The judge upholds evidence against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, including testimony that she targeted a victim named Virginia, metadata suggesting she authored an essay, and the assertion that she received approximately $23 million from co-conspirator Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021550.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) concerning the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The proceedings cover the confirmation of victim notification postings on the U.S. Attorney's website. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, both confirm on the record that they have reviewed the presentence report and discussed it. Ms. Sternheim notes that co-counsel Mr. Everdell will handle objections.
DOJ-OGR-00021127.jpg
This page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) argues that Ms. Maxwell was deprived of an impartial jury due to Juror No. 50 providing false answers during voir dire. It details that the juror concealed his history as a victim of child sexual abuse by his step-brother, justifying his false answers on questions 25, 48, and 49 by citing his 'healing process,' distraction, and personal definition of family.
DOJ-OGR-00019605.jpg
This document, dated September 28, 2020, is a legal argument asserting that a writ of mandamus is necessary to address inconsistent decisions by judges in the Southern District of New York concerning Ms. Maxwell's motion to consolidate. It concludes by recommending that the Court deny the government's motion to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing that deposition material will become moot once unsealed.
| 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