Ms. Maxwell

Person

Mentions

1982

Relationships

520

Events

872

Documents

955

Relationship Network

Network Depth

Loading... nodes

Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

520 total relationships

Sort by:

Connected Entity	Relationship Type	Strength (mentions)	Documents	Actions
organization The government	Legal representative	15 Very Strong	68	View
person MR. EPSTEIN	Business associate	15 Very Strong	20	View
person Epstein	Business associate	13 Very Strong	23	View
person Ms. Sternheim	Client	13 Very Strong	11	View
person Juror No. 50	Legal representative	12 Very Strong	35	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Business associate	12 Very Strong	17	View
person Mr. Everdell	Client	12 Very Strong	12	View
person Juror No. 50	Juror defendant	12 Very Strong	7	View
organization The government	Adversarial	12 Very Strong	16	View
person Bobbi C. Sternheim	Client	11 Very Strong	16	View
person Judge Nathan	Legal representative	11 Very Strong	11	View
person JANE	Alleged perpetrator victim	11 Very Strong	6	View
person Epstein	Co conspirators	11 Very Strong	11	View
organization GOVERNMENT	Legal representative	11 Very Strong	55	View
person Judge Preska	Legal representative	11 Very Strong	10	View
person JANE	Defendant victim	10 Very Strong	6	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Legal representative	10 Very Strong	5	View
person Mr. Everdell	Legal representative	10 Very Strong	6	View
person Epstein	Financial	10 Very Strong	7	View
organization GOVERNMENT	Adversarial	10 Very Strong	21	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Association	10 Very Strong	11	View
person Epstein	Friend	10 Very Strong	7	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Professional	10 Very Strong	9	View
organization The Court	Legal representative	10 Very Strong	10	View
person Epstein	Professional	10 Very Strong	7	View

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-00019424.jpg

This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 60) filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that if Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan's order via the 'collateral order doctrine,' the appellate court should instead issue a 'writ of mandamus' to modify the protective order. The document outlines legal precedents and the three specific conditions required to issue such a writ.

Legal brief / court filing (appellate)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019421.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing in Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020. The author, likely representing Ms. Maxwell, argues that a protective order is appealable by citing precedent from cases like *Pappas* and *United States v. Salameh*. The filing refutes the government's argument by clarifying the focus of Ms. Maxwell's appeal.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019420.jpg

This page from a legal document argues that an appeal by Ms. Maxwell should be heard before her criminal trial concludes, otherwise it will become moot. The argument centers on her need to share information with Judge Preska for an ongoing unsealing process, a situation the author distinguishes from legal precedents like Caparros and Pappas.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019419.jpg

This legal document, part of Case 20-3061 dated September 24, 2020, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, countering the government's position. The author argues that the government misinterprets and improperly relies on two precedent cases, United States v. Caparros (1986) and United States v. Pappas (1996), regarding the appealability of protective orders. The document specifically analyzes the Caparros case to demonstrate why it is distinguishable from Ms. Maxwell's current situation.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019415.jpg

This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in an appeal related to the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The author argues that appealing Judge Preska's decision to unseal deposition material will be moot after a final judgment. The stated purpose of the appeal is to share redacted information, which Ms. Maxwell learned, with Judge Preska.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019413.jpg

This document is page 14 of a legal filing from September 24, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's appeals. It outlines the procedural posture of two related appeals: one regarding Judge Preska's order unsealing deposition materials in the civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell), and the current appeal regarding Judge Nathan's denial of a motion to modify a criminal protective order. Maxwell has moved to consolidate these two appeals.

Legal filing / court document (appellate brief)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019412.jpg

This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, describes a procedural issue in a case involving Ms. Maxwell. A criminal protective order issued by Judge Nathan prevented Ms. Maxwell from sharing critical information with Judge Preska regarding an unsealing process. Following Judge Preska's suggestion, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan to modify the order, seeking permission to share what she had learned under seal.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019409.jpg

This legal document from September 24, 2020, discusses judicial proceedings involving Ms. Maxwell. It notes that Judge Preska took over a case from the late Judge Sweet and describes how arguments by Ms. Maxwell to keep materials sealed were dismissed. The document also mentions a specific instance where Ms. Maxwell's motion to stay discovery in a related case, 'Farmer v. Indyke', was opposed by attorneys representing both Ms. Giuffre and plaintiff Annie Farmer.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019405.jpg

This page outlines the statement of the case and facts regarding Ms. Maxwell, detailing a six-count superseding indictment involving conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein and perjury. It also summarizes the background of the civil defamation case Giuffre v. Maxwell, which was settled and dismissed in 2017.

Legal document / court filing

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019401.jpg

This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 60, Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The filing's primary argument is that Judge Nathan incorrectly refused to modify a protective order, which would have allowed Ms. Maxwell to share sealed material information with Judge Preska. The document outlines the structure of the legal brief, including the case history, jurisdictional statements, and the specific points of the argument.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019397.jpg

This document is page 4 of a legal filing dated September 23, 2020, related to Case 20-3061. It argues in favor of a motion to consolidate legal proceedings involving Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Giuffre, asserting that consolidation will not cause delay or circumvent Judge Nathan's prior orders. The text emphasizes that the Court has already scheduled oral arguments for both cases on the same day.

Legal filing / court document (page 4 of 6)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019395.jpg

This document is page 2 of a legal filing dated September 23, 2020, arguing that the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell is directly related to the civil case involving Virginia Giuffre, specifically citing perjury allegations. It contends that the government has a strategic interest in not intervening in the civil case regarding the unsealing of an April 2016 deposition to argue that a 'Martindell' violation was harmless. The page contains significant redactions in the center.

Legal filing / court document (appellate brief or motion)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019326.jpg

This document is the final page of a court order from the Southern District of New York, signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on August 12, 2020. The order addresses a request by Ms. Maxwell for a 'stay of the unsealing process,' stating that she may renew this request if the protective order in a parallel criminal action is modified to allow disclosure of relevant information. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.

Court order / legal ruling

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019323.jpg

A letter to Judge Loretta A. Preska from Laura A. Menninger regarding procedural requests for the unsealing of documents in the case involving Ms. Maxwell. The letter proposes amendments to the unsealing protocol to prevent errors, requests a 7-day window for appeals to the Second Circuit, and suggests a specific list of five docket entries for the next round of review.

Legal correspondence / letter to judge

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019322.jpg

This document is a letter from Ms. Maxwell's legal counsel to Judge Loretta A. Preska requesting a temporary stay of the unsealing process and discussing procedural agreements. It outlines proposals to streamline the unsealing process, such as notifying non-parties simultaneously and shortening objection timelines for original parties, while also requesting a 15-page limit for future objections.

Legal correspondence / court filing

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019299.jpg

This is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 17) from Case 20-3061, dated September 10, 2020. The text argues against modifying a protective order due to grand jury secrecy but argues that, based on the precedent of Brown v. Maxwell, Ms. Maxwell should be allowed to share information learned from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska. A significant portion of the page is redacted.

Legal court filing / appellate brief

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019298.jpg

This is a page from a legal filing dated September 10, 2020, related to Case 20-3061 (likely an appellate case involving Ghislaine Maxwell). The visible text discusses a dispute over a protective order where the government and Judge Nathan refused to allow Ms. Maxwell to share material facts with Judge Preska under seal. The document is heavily redacted.

Legal filing / court document (appellate brief or motion)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019297.jpg

This document is a heavily redacted page from a legal filing in Case 20-3061, dated September 10, 2020. The only visible text argues that it is essential for 'Ms. Maxwell' to be able to share information with 'Judge Preska', indicating a point being made in a legal proceeding.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019296.jpg

This legal document, part of Case 20-3061 dated September 10, 2020, argues for the consolidation of legal cases. The author contends that having separate panels for criminal and civil cases creates an unfair situation, and cites inconsistent rulings from judges in the Southern District of New York as having prejudiced Ms. Maxwell.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019293.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 10, 2020, discussing the unsealing of deposition materials in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It details procedural history where Maxwell requested a stay on unsealing due to 'critical new information' she could not disclose because of a criminal protective order overseen by Judge Nathan. Judge Preska declined the stay but remained open to reevaluation if Judge Nathan modified the protective order.

Court filing / legal brief (appellate)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019284.jpg

This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 20-3061), explains the procedural constraints on Ms. Maxwell due to conflicting court orders. A criminal protective order from Judge Nathan prevents her from sharing critical information with Judge Preska in a related civil case. Consequently, Ms. Maxwell must file a redacted version of her Motion to Consolidate publicly, while the full, unredacted version can only be filed under seal in the criminal appeal.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019101.jpg

This document is a transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on the relationship between Ghislaine Maxwell and Mr. Epstein during the 1990s and 2000s. Rodgers confirms that Maxwell maintained residences separate from Epstein and that, from his perspective, she always had an 'employment role' with him.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017213.jpg

Page 192 of a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) from the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text contains jury instructions defining 'reasonable doubt' and outlining the jury's duty to convict or acquit based on the evidence. It also introduces Instruction No. 9, explaining that an indictment is merely an accusation and not proof of guilt.

Court transcript / jury instructions

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017211.jpg

This document is a page from a jury charge in the criminal case of Ms. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The instructions direct the jury to remain impartial, treating both the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, and the prosecution, the United States of America, as equals. It strongly emphasizes the legal principles of the presumption of innocence for the defendant and that the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rests solely with the government.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017180.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Court regarding defense attorney Ms. Menninger's closing summation. The prosecution argues that the defense improperly suggested to the jury that the government was using Ms. Maxwell as a substitute for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein.

Court transcript

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

Total Received

$43,000,000.00

6 transactions

Total Paid

$51,600,000.00

14 transactions

Net Flow

-$8,600,000.00

20 total transactions

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

As Sender

As Recipient

Total

Request to stay unseal proceedings

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: Judge Preska

Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Preska to stay the unseal proceedings to allow her to get permission to share confidential information from a criminal case.

Legal request

N/A

Communication Source

Something that happened between her move from a large apa...

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: ["Rodgers"]

The document references prior conversations between the witness (Rodgers) and Ms. Maxwell, which are the basis for a question from the attorney.

Conversation

N/A

Communication Source

Detention conditions

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: ["unit counselor (BP8)...

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.

Written complaints

N/A

Communication Source

Something that happened between her move from a large apa...

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: ["Rodgers"]

The document references prior conversations between the witness (Rodgers) and Ms. Maxwell, which are the basis for a question from the attorney.

Conversation

N/A

Communication Source

Household duties

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: ["Juan"]

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.

Verbal instructions

N/A

Communication Source

Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: Rodgers

After beepers were no longer used, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via cell phone to provide information about an upcoming flight.

Cell phone

N/A

Communication Source

General communication

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: Rodgers

Communication via cell phones

Call

N/A

Communication Source

Discovery in Giuffre v. Maxwell

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: attorneys

Two depositions designated confidential.

Deposition

N/A

Communication Source

Performance of duties at the residence

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: ["Alessi"]

Ms. Maxwell provided instructions to Alessi regarding his duties at the residence, which involved tasks in various rooms and areas of the property.

Verbal instructions

N/A

Communication Source

Video conference

From: Counsel

To: Ms. Maxwell

Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.

Meeting

N/A

Communication Source

Non-legal personal matters

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: Unknown

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).

Phone call

N/A

Communication Source

Location tracking

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: N/A

Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.

Cellular tracking

N/A

Communication Source

Needs/requests

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: Rodgers

Communication via beeper if she needed something

Beeper

N/A

Communication Source

Legal consultation

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: Counsel

Guards are described as feverishly writing while observing Ms. Maxwell during videoconferencing with her counsel.

Videoconference

N/A

Communication Source

Discovery Disc

From: the government

To: Ms. Maxwell

Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.

Mail

N/A

Communication Source

Legal Emails

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: Legal Counsel

Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.

N/A

Communication Source

Discovery relevant to motions

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: the government

Ms. Maxwell asked the government for documents relevant to these motions, but was denied.

Request for documents

N/A

Communication Source

Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: Rodgers

Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.

Beeper

N/A

Communication Source

In-person legal conference

From: Counsel

To: Ms. Maxwell

Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.

Meeting

N/A

Communication Source

Phone Message

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: MR. EPSTEIN

Telephoned. (No specific message text written)

Call

N/A

Communication Source

Upcoming flight information

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: Rodgers

Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via beeper to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.

Beeper

N/A

Communication Source

Upcoming flight information

From: Ms. Maxwell

To: Rodgers

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.

Cell phone

N/A

Communication Source