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 | Organization closure | The TerraMar Project was closed after Epstein’s death to spare her partners from invasion of priv... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The upcoming trial for which the government is seeking pre-trial notice of evidence from the defe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Roberts talked to a young girl. The girl and Ms. Maxwell then went inside a s... | spa | View |
| N/A | Bail application | Ms. Maxwell has a renewed bail application, which is being supported by several individuals (sure... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | The witness (Alessi) saw the same girl from the spa arrive at a house and introduced her to Ms. M... | the house in Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial for which jurors were being selected, where the central issue was the credibility of ac... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Medical procedure/inspection | Immediately after receiving two nasal swab COVID tests, Ms. Maxwell was required to remove her ma... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Erasure of data | All of Ms. Maxwell’s legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | A jury selection process in White Plains that is alleged to have resulted in the systematic under... | White Plains | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Argument being made in favor of granting bond to Ms. Maxwell. | United States | View |
| N/A | Proposed action | Ms. Maxwell proposed to renounce her British and French citizenship. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Surveillance | Ongoing 15-minute light surveillance / disruptive flashlight surveillance of Ms. Maxwell's sleepi... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Threat | The MDC has threatened to place Ms. Maxwell in the SHU. | MDC | View |
| N/A | Proposed action | Ms. Maxwell proposed to place her and her spouse's assets into a monitored account. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Targeting of a person | The defendant identified and targeted a person named Virginia after seeing her in the Mar-a-Lago ... | Mar-a-Lago parking lot | View |
| N/A | Targeting of a person | The defendant worked with Epstein to identify and target a person named Jane. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A trip to New Mexico involving Jane and the defendant. Flight logs showed the defendant was present. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A renewed bail application was submitted for Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A previous bail hearing where the Court expressed concern that Ms. Maxwell lacked significant fam... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The government's case against Ms. Maxwell, which is alleged to be based entirely on the testimony... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the scope of a trial, arguing that introducing certain evidence about gove... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal act | Ms. Maxwell allegedly enticed Jane to travel across state lines with the intent that she would en... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Flight | Visoski describes his general duties during flights on Mr. Epstein's planes, including assisting ... | Mr. Epstein's private planes | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | A questioner (Q) conducts a direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi (A), regarding his recogn... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The transportation of Jane across state lines by Ms. Maxwell, with the alleged purpose of engagin... | Interstate commerce (across... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial or other relief due to juror misconduct. The filing contends that Juror No. 50 was not impartial, citing his 'pattern and practice of telling falsehoods' under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The document refutes the government's counterarguments and uses legal precedents like McDonough and Greer to support the claim that the juror's deliberate lies are evidence of bias and that the court would have struck him for cause had the truth been known.
DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg
This legal document argues against accepting a juror's claim of having 'missed' or 'forgotten' a question, labeling it self-serving nonsense. It draws a parallel to bankruptcy law, where untruthful statements are treated severely, citing case law to support the idea that reckless indifference to the truth is equivalent to fraud. The author finds it ironic that the government is excusing 'Juror No. 50's' false answers while being unwilling to afford the same leniency to the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00009206.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding juror misconduct. It contends that the government's view—that Maxwell must carry a heavier burden of proof because Juror No. 50 was untruthful during jury selection—is unfair and incorrect. The argument cites legal precedents, including McDonough and United States v. Stewart, to establish the proper standard for challenging a juror based on false voir dire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009204.jpg
This legal document is a page from a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that she is entitled to a new trial due to false answers given by Juror No. 50 during jury selection. The central argument is that Maxwell does not need to prove the juror's falsehoods were deliberate, citing several legal precedents to support the claim that even honest mistakes can warrant a new trial to ensure the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The motion criticizes the government's position as a weak attempt to achieve "finality" at the expense of justice.
DOJ-OGR-00009203.jpg
This legal document argues that the government's reliance on the Tanner and Ianniello legal precedents is incorrect in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that unlike those cases, the alleged misconduct by Juror No. 50 occurred outside the jury room, specifically through false answers during voir dire and subsequent self-publicity. The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and that the juror's own actions in seeking the limelight are the reason the misconduct came to light.
DOJ-OGR-00009202.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 616) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 24, 2022. It is a legal argument rebutting the government's opposition to a new trial, specifically addressing standards of juror misconduct, prejudice, and the right to an impartial jury. The text cites various legal precedents including Tanner v. United States and United States v. Ianniello to discuss the balance between investigating juror misconduct and maintaining verdict finality.
DOJ-OGR-00009200.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that Juror No. 50 failed to disclose childhood sexual abuse during jury selection. The defense contends that had this information been known, Ms. Maxwell would have successfully challenged the juror for cause due to inherent bias. The text notes that the juror later spoke to the media about his trauma but is now attempting to walk back those comments after being warned by the government of potential legal consequences.
DOJ-OGR-00009199.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a juror (Juror No. 50) in Ms. Maxwell's trial failed to disclose his own history as a victim of child abuse during jury selection. The filing asserts that this lack of candor was prejudicial to the defendant, as the defense would have immediately challenged the juror for cause had the truth been known. The document highlights that the Court had denied the defense's requests for more thorough questioning but had assured them it would identify dishonest jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009197.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing against the government's proposal for a limited evidentiary hearing concerning Juror No. 50. The defense contends that the juror's alleged false answers necessitate a reversal, citing Supreme Court precedent, and that Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to a full adversarial hearing, not the narrow one proposed by the government. The filing draws parallels to the United States v. Daugerdas case to support its claim for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009192.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal motion filed on February 24, 2022, on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The motion argues for a new trial, primarily on the grounds that Juror No. 50 provided deliberately false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document outlines the legal arguments, challenges the government's position, and discusses the procedures for a potential hearing on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009102.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing the questioning of a potential juror. The court probes the juror's prior knowledge of Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, which the juror states came from a CNN news broadcast after Epstein's death. The juror affirms their ability to disregard this information and judge the case solely on the evidence presented in court.
DOJ-OGR-00009086.jpg
This document is a portion of a juror questionnaire for Juror 50, filed on February 24, 2022, for a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The juror states they have not formed any opinions about Ms. Maxwell that would prevent them from being impartial. The juror confirms they have previously heard about Jeffrey Epstein from CNN, specifically recalling news of his death and that he was in jail awaiting trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009065.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated January 19, 2022, arguing that Ms. Maxwell's guilty verdict should be vacated. The text alleges that Juror No. 50 and at least one other juror were dishonest during the *voir dire* process, violating the defendant's Constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The defense requests a new trial or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing to examine all twelve jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009062.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the court should strike all filings made by 'Juror No. 50.' The argument posits that the juror, as a non-party, lacks standing and that the filings are an improper attempt at discovery, not 'judicial documents' entitled to public access. Alternatively, it requests that the juror's filings remain sealed pending the outcome of Ms. Maxwell's motion for a new trial, which is based on the same juror's alleged dishonesty during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009056.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. The document argues that Juror No. 50 falsely answered questions during jury selection (voir dire) and requests subpoenas for the juror's emails with alleged victims, witnesses, or other jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009055.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror 50, failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection. This omission prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge, and the juror later revealed his bias to the media by stating his memory was 'like a video' and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility. The argument cites numerous New Jersey court precedents where judgments were invalidated for similar juror inaccuracies.
DOJ-OGR-00009054.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 613) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because 'Juror 50' failed to disclose that they were a victim of sexual abuse during voir dire, preventing the defense from using a peremptory challenge to remove them. The document cites legal precedents regarding the Sixth Amendment and the importance of peremptory challenges.
DOJ-OGR-00009052.jpg
This document is page 51 (internal page 44) of a legal filing (Document 613) dated February 24, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' was dishonest during jury selection (voir dire) by failing to disclose that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse and crime (referencing Questions 48 and 25). The text asserts that this nondisclosure prevented the defense from probing his ability to be impartial regarding Dr. Loftus's testimony and Maxwell's defense strategy concerning false memories.
DOJ-OGR-00009050.jpg
This legal document argues that a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, engaged in a post-trial publicity tour, including a documentary interview, potentially for financial gain. The government's public filing of a letter (Docket No. 568) to stop the juror's media appearances is presented as a strategic move to prevent further scrutiny of the juror's conduct, which could have provided grounds for a new trial for the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00009047.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers to questions during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell can meet the burden of proof to show the juror's dishonesty and that the court should infer bias, citing legal precedents to support its claims. The filing suggests that video evidence of the juror being confronted with the false answers supports the claim of intentional deception.
DOJ-OGR-00009042.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion arguing for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. It cites the 2018 New Hampshire case, State v. Ashfar, as precedent, where a new trial was granted because a juror failed to disclose during voir dire that he was a victim of sexual assault. The document draws a parallel between the juror in Ashfar and 'Juror No. 50' in Maxwell's case, suggesting a similar false denial of personal experience warrants a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009041.jpg
This legal document discusses the critical issue of juror impartiality and memory reliability in court proceedings. It references the Sampson v. United States case, where a new penalty-phase hearing was ordered due to a juror's undisclosed personal experiences as a crime victim, drawing parallels to concerns about Juror No. 50's ability to fairly evaluate evidence in the current case. The document also incorporates expert testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding the confidence and accuracy of memories, emphasizing the potential for bias when jurors' personal experiences align with case details.
DOJ-OGR-00009040.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of Ms. Maxwell's defense, arguing against the reliability of her accusers' memories. It highlights similarities between the claims of accusers (Jane, Carolyn, Kate, Annie Farmer) and those of Juror No. 50, who also claims to be a victim of abuse. The document focuses on Juror No. 50's assertion that his memory can be 'replayed like a video,' directly contradicting the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus, who stated that memory is a constructive process, thereby questioning the validity of such memory claims and suggesting potential juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009036.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. The basis for the argument is that a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire) by denying he had ever been a victim of a crime or sexual abuse. The document asserts that the juror later admitted to media outlets that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and that this dishonesty was material to his ability to serve as an impartial juror, thus satisfying the legal test for a new trial.
| 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 |
CorrLinks emails
Ms. Maxwell's CorrLinks emails were allegedly erased by guards.
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 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.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
Video conference
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Divorce
Discussed divorce to create distance and protect him from consequences of association.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
In-person legal conference
Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc.
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Status/Indictment
Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, allegedly to stave off indictment, but did not provide whereabouts.
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
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
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
Location tracking
Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Discovery relevant to motions
Ms. Maxwell asked the government for documents relevant to these motions, but was denied.
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).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity