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 | Interaction | The witness observed Virginia interacting with Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein at the Palm Beach home. | Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home | View |
| N/A | Prison procedure | Targeted flashlight checks conducted on Ms. Maxwell every 15 minutes during the night while she i... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal conduct | Alleged "sexual abuse" of Accuser-2 and Accuser-3 by Epstein, in which the government alleges Ms.... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal conduct | A specific allegation of travel by Accuser-1 mentioned in the indictment. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | The alleged sex trafficking of Carolyn, a minor, by Ms. Maxwell, which is the subject of Count Si... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | Ms. Maxwell's trial is set for July. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Criminal conspiracy/scheme | A criminal scheme discussed in court where Sarah Kellen worked as an assistant for Maxwell and Ep... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged 'sexual abuse' involving Accuser-3 | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Grooming | Request to identify dates and locations where Ms. Maxwell allegedly groomed Minor Victim-1 to eng... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Grooming | Request to identify dates when Ms. Maxwell allegedly groomed Minor Victim-2 to engage in acts of ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | A pending criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Preparation for a criminal trial, which is described as being severely hampered for Ms. Maxwell d... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Bail hearing | The document refers to a "first bail hearing" where Ms. Maxwell's side mentioned temporary release. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document is an instruction for the jury during a trial, identified by case number 1:20-cr-003... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Driving | The witness drove 'dozens and dozens' of people for Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conspiracy | An alleged criminal conspiracy that Ms. Maxwell is accused of participating in. The document deta... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting/interaction | Request to identify dates and locations of alleged meeting/interaction between Ms. Maxwell and Mi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conviction | The jury convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The defense is arguing that the jury's conviction was based on a constructive amendment of the in... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A discussion of the legal standard for challenging a juror for cause based on false statements ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crime | Ms. Maxwell and Epstein victimized multiple underaged girls over the span of many years. | a variety of locations | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | A questionnaire is being used to vet potential jurors for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, specifically as... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | Transportation of an individual under the age of 17 (Jane) across state lines to engage in illega... | interstate | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Discussion of Ms. Maxwell's potential bail hearing and the conditions that would apply. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Arrest | The document mentions Ms. Maxwell's arrest as a point in time after which her circumstances changed. | N/A | 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 |
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