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 | Testimony | Jane chose to cooperate with the government and testify against Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the rules of evidence and procedures for an upcoming trial involving Ms. M... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Detention | Ms. Maxwell's ongoing detention at the Metropolitan Correction Center under conditions described ... | Metropolitan Correction Cen... | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the pleadings filed by Juror 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A large-scale construction and development project on a tropical island. The project involved new... | Island | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The government produced voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) to Ms. Maxwell and her coun... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell is presenting a bail application for the Court's consideration. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The witness, Alessi, visited Ms. Maxwell's townhome in London for about five minutes. | Ms. Maxwell's townhome in L... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A motion for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell, based on issues with a juror's answers during voir dire. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The trial of Ms. Maxwell, where the government argued its theory of a single conspiracy to the jury. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conspiracy | A single, decade-long criminal conspiracy between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to exploit young girls. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Jury instruction (Instruction No. 15) for Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Alleged transportation of Jane across state lines by Ms. Maxwell for the purpose of illegal sexua... | interstate / across state l... | View |
| N/A | Custodial action | The Bureau of Prisons placed Ms. Maxwell on suicide watch. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The charging of Ms. Maxwell by prosecutors. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Bail application for Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A charge to a jury regarding the legal definition of conspiracy and the requirements to find Ms. ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Ms. Maxwell reasserts her motion to vacate her conviction and dismiss the indictment due to pre-i... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court granted Ms. Maxwell leave to renew her motion after the conclusion of her trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal trial involving Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An unsealing process overseen by Judge Preska, for which Ms. Maxwell seeks permission to share in... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An appeal by Ms. Maxwell which is argued will become moot if review awaits a final judgment in th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court denied Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions on the grounds that she failed to show 'actual an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Ms. Maxwell filed initial and supplemental pretrial motions claiming violation of due process rig... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Criminal case | A criminal case, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, in which Ms. Maxwell is the defendant. | 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 |
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'.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
Upcoming flight information
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via beeper to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
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 and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
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.
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).
Legal consultation
Guards are described as feverishly writing while observing Ms. Maxwell during videoconferencing with her counsel.
Performance of duties at the residence
Ms. Maxwell provided instructions to Alessi regarding his duties at the residence, which involved tasks in various rooms and areas of the property.
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.
Needing something
Early on, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness by beeper if she needed something.
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.
CorrLinks emails
Ms. Maxwell's CorrLinks emails were allegedly erased by guards.
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.
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.
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.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
After beepers were no longer used, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via cell phone to provide information about an upcoming flight.
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.
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity