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-00019604.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. It outlines the three legal conditions required for such a writ, citing precedents like 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.'. The document asserts that all three conditions are met, specifically claiming that Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and that the petitioner, Ms. Maxwell, has no other legal recourse, referencing her request to Judge Preska.
DOJ-OGR-00019603.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing for the ability to share sealed information with Judge Preska to litigate the "Martindell issue," which she claims the government improperly handled. As an alternative, the filing requests that the appellate court exercise mandamus jurisdiction to compel the district court to modify a protective order, citing legal precedent to support both arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00019602.jpg
This legal document is a filing in Ms. Maxwell's civil appeal, arguing against an order by Judge Preska to unseal her deposition. The core argument is that unsealing the deposition would prejudice her ability to properly litigate the government's conduct (the 'Martindell' issue) before Judge Nathan in her separate criminal case. The document refutes the government's characterization of her argument, stating she is not asking the appeals court to rule on the merits of the criminal case issue, but rather to preserve the status quo to protect her Fifth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00019600.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues that an appeal will become moot if Ms. Maxwell is not immediately allowed to share information with Judge Preska for an unsealing process. The filing distinguishes the current situation from the precedent set in the 'Pappas' case, arguing that the nature of the protective order in that case was different. The core issue is the timing of information sharing and its effect on the legal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019599.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, related to Case 20-3061. The author argues that the current case, involving Ms. Maxwell, is distinct from the legal precedent set in the 'Caparros' case. The key distinction made is that while the defendant in Caparros sought to make documents public, Ms. Maxwell seeks to provide documents to judicial officers, such as Judge Preska, under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00019597.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, concerning Case 20-3061. It presents a legal argument distinguishing the current appeal from *Flanagan v. United States*, asserting that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding Judge Nathan's order is comparable to a bail reduction motion because the harm (unsealing deposition materials) would be irreversible ("the cat is irretrievably out of the bag") if not addressed immediately. The text argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share information from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska to prevent the unsealing order from going into effect without reconsideration.
DOJ-OGR-00019593.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically an appeal, related to Case 20-3061. The appellant, Ms. Maxwell, challenges a district court order by Judge Nathan that denied her request to share information with another judge. The filing argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review this order under the collateral order doctrine, countering the government's contention that the order is unreviewable.
DOJ-OGR-00019588.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing from September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. Ms. Maxwell's legal counsel requests permission to file several documents under seal, including an unredacted opening brief, Appendix Volume 2 (which is entirely confidential), and a response to the government's opposition. The document notes that the government does not oppose this motion.
DOJ-OGR-00019587.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in which Ms. Maxwell requests permission from the court to be excused from publicly filing a redacted version of 'Appendix Volume 2'. The justification is that the appendix and related briefs contain confidential information shielded by a criminal protective order. The filing connects this request to two ongoing appeals she has filed: one against an order by Judge Nathan and another against an order by Judge Preska in the related case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, with a consolidated oral argument scheduled for October 13.
DOJ-OGR-00019579.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated August 24, 2020, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The letter argues that his client, Ms. Maxwell, has demonstrated good cause to present a discrete set of sealed materials to judicial officers, countering that any argument of compromising grand jury secrecy is 'absurd'. Pagliuca asserts that the government has failed to provide a valid reason for withholding this information from other judicial officers.
DOJ-OGR-00019576.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is page 3 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues against the U.S. Government's position, refuting the claim that materials Ms. Maxwell seeks to file under seal are 'Confidential' or would compromise a 'secret' investigation. The filing cites legal precedent and states that the subpoena recipient is already aware of the information in question.
DOJ-OGR-00019572.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues for the continued sealing of certain court documents, with redactions, to protect Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial from pretrial publicity. The filing references the government's own public statements about its ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's associates as evidence of the high-profile nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019568.jpg
This legal document, dated August 17, 2020, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues for modifying a Protective Order, claiming that the 'partial secrecy' surrounding materials from a grand jury subpoena has undermined the fairness of the legal process. The document states that this secrecy unfairly disadvantages Ms. Maxwell and leaves critical questions about government communications unanswered.
DOJ-OGR-00019564.jpg
Page 2 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 17, 2020. The document discusses the handling of materials marked 'Confidential' by the government, with the defense (Maxwell) arguing that these are 'judicial documents' with a presumptive right of public access, citing Brown v. Maxwell. Large portions of the factual history and footnotes are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019499.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2020, is a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding a protective order in the criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. The government argues that restrictions on the use of discovery materials—prohibiting their use in civil proceedings or posting online—should apply not only to Ms. Maxwell and her defense but also to the government's potential witnesses and their counsel. This is requested due to concern that witnesses, who are involved in separate civil litigation with Maxwell, will use the discovery materials to support their civil cases or in public statements.
DOJ-OGR-00019494.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, details arguments following Ghislaine Maxwell's detention hearing. It heavily features comments from David Boies, a lawyer for an accuser named Farmer, who criticizes Maxwell's potential 'blame the victim' defense strategy as counterproductive. Boies recounts his client's allegations, including a story about how Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein allegedly lured a 16-year-old girl named Annie to a ranch in New Mexico with fraudulent promises.
DOJ-OGR-00019492.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that her right to a fair trial has been prejudiced by public statements made by the prosecution. It specifically cites a press conference held by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss following Maxwell's July 2, 2020 arrest, quoting her statements to the New York Law Journal and the Washington Post as evidence of prejudicial commentary on Maxwell's credibility and guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00019439.jpg
This legal document from Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020, contains two certifications related to a court filing. Adam Mueller certifies that a brief complies with federal court rules regarding word count (7,343 words) and formatting, while Nicole Simmons certifies that she filed 'Ms. Maxwell’s Opening Brief' with the court and served it to all counsel of record via the CM/ECF system.
DOJ-OGR-00019437.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The author argues that the Court should overturn a district court's decision, which would allow Ms. Maxwell to share information from her criminal case (under Judge Nathan) with Judge Preska in her civil case. The filing contends that the government's argument to prevent this sharing lacks a principled justification.
DOJ-OGR-00019434.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, argues that the government strategically chose not to intervene to prevent the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's depositions. The filing suggests this inaction allows the government to later claim any violation of a prior ruling was harmless. It supports its argument by citing legal precedents, such as 'Louis Vuitton' and 'SEC v. Boock', which warn of the dangers for defendants who waive their Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00019431.jpg
This document is page 32 of a legal filing (dated Sept 24, 2020) arguing against the unsealing of deposition material. The text contends that unsealing the material would prevent Judge Preska from reconsidering her decision based on new information about how the government obtained the material, and would prejudice Ms. Maxwell's ability to argue before Judge Nathan that perjury counts should be dismissed due to the government's circumvention of the 'Martindell' precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00019429.jpg
This legal document describes the predicament of Ms. Maxwell, who is involved in both a civil and a criminal case presided over by two different judges, Judge Preska and Judge Nathan. A protective order in the criminal case, issued by Judge Nathan, prevents her from sharing relevant information with Judge Preska in the civil case. Her requests to both judges to resolve this issue have been denied, placing her in what the document calls a 'Catch-22 situation'.
DOJ-OGR-00019428.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The text argues that the government failed to follow proper procedures to access court-protected documents from a civil case. It highlights Ms. Maxwell's unique position as the only individual involved in all six related judicial proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019426.jpg
This document is a legal filing, likely part of an appeal brief, dated September 24, 2020. The filing argues that the appellate court should overturn Judge Nathan's decision and modify a criminal protective order. The purpose of the modification is to allow Ms. Maxwell to share sealed information with Judge Preska regarding how the government obtained her deposition transcripts, which Judge Preska is considering unsealing.
DOJ-OGR-00019425.jpg
This document is page 21 (filed as page 26) of a legal brief in Case 20-3061, filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that a writ of mandamus is appropriate because Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and Judge Preska's unsealing order relies on inconsistent decisions within the Southern District of New York. The text discusses the unsealing of deposition materials and claims prejudice against Ms. Maxwell, though specific details are heavily redacted.
| 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 Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
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.
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.
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.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Divorce
Discussed divorce to create distance and protect him from consequences of association.
Needing something
Early on, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness by beeper if she needed something.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Emails
MDC allegedly prematurely deleted legal emails.
Civil Deposition
Testimony where the judge concluded dishonesty/perjury occurred.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity