Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Alleged trafficker victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Counsel for Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Defendant juror |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell's spouse
|
Marital |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Visoski
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged co conspirators |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Association |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Friend |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Supervisory |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Acquaintance |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Alleged trafficker and victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Client |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Acquaintance |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
opponent in the Civil Litigation
|
Adversarial |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's Sentencing Proceeding | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding circumstantial evidence and inferences. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Detention Hearing Decision | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Narrator arrives at Jeffrey's, goes to massage room where Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell are waiting... | Jeffrey's residence, massag... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Request by Daily News to unseal documents related to Ms. Maxwell's new trial effort. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Took Minor Victim-2 to a movie | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing regarding fines, restitution, and guideline calculations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Period when alleged events took place (described as 'over 25 years ago') | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing enhancements for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged massages of Epstein by Accuser-3 | England | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness duties regarding household preparation | Epstein Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flight to New Mexico | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Last bail hearing where the Court expressed concern about lack of ties. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Mr. Alessi regarding Ms. Maxwell's use of the telephone directory. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding Count Four | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell visited Mar-a-Lago for potential treatment. | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acts alleged in Count Four of the Indictment (Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexu... | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal Trial | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transportation of Jane in interstate or foreign commerce. | Interstate/International | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sighting of Virginia Roberts | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| N/A | N/A | Spa Check | Mar-a-Lago (Spa) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Three bail renewal hearings | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008926.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents (page 'i') for a legal filing (Document 600) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 11, 2022. The filing outlines arguments to vacate Maxwell's convictions on Mann Act counts due to variances from the indictment, consolidate conspiracy counts because they are multiplicitous, and dismiss the indictment due to pre-indictment delay. It references specific evidence types including flight records, passenger manifests, and financial documents.
DOJ-OGR-00031453.jpg
This Palm Beach Police Department incident report details an interview conducted on November 21, 2005, with former Epstein employees Juan and Maria Alessi. In the presence of their attorney and an Assistant State Attorney, they described their duties and observations, including the frequent arrival of young girls (appearing 16-17 years old) for massages. Juan Alessi specifically noted finding and cleaning sex toys (a vibrator and rubber penis) in the sink after these sessions and dealing with Epstein's girlfriend, Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019893.jpg
This is a page from a legal document, likely a defense memorandum, filed on July 10, 2020. The text argues against the government's assertion that Ms. Maxwell was 'hiding' from law enforcement after Epstein's arrest, claiming her actions, such as moving and changing her contact information, were necessary measures and not an attempt to evade prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00019884.jpg
This legal document argues that the risks of COVID-19 to inmates in correctional facilities have significantly increased, citing a doubling of cases and a 73% increase in deaths in the last month. It highlights that the virus is now spreading in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), where Ms. Maxwell was recently transferred by the Bureau of Prisons. The document uses prior court opinions and news reports to support the claim of heightened risk and the inevitability of community spread in such facilities.
DOJ-OGR-00019858.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated April 1, 2021, submitted by attorney David Oscar Markus on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that Maxwell is being unfairly detained under unacceptable conditions due to the "Epstein effect" and formally requests her release on bail or an evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00019857.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proof regarding Ms. Maxwell's flight risk, citing Supreme Court precedent on bail. It references the case of United States v. Bodmer, where a defendant was released to home confinement with GPS monitoring despite the government's speculative arguments. The document concludes that Ms. Maxwell should receive similar treatment to other defendants granted bond.
DOJ-OGR-00019854.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing against the government's claim that she is a flight risk. The defense asserts that she chose to remain in the United States to fight the charges and has offered to renounce her British and French citizenships and place her and her spouse's assets into a monitored account to secure bond.
DOJ-OGR-00019851.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021, arguing against the Government's position that Ms. Maxwell is a flight risk solely based on statutory maximum penalties. The defense cites Second Circuit precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to establish that a potential long sentence is insufficient grounds for detention without further evidence of flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00019848.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, likely a brief, arguing that the pretrial detention conditions of a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, are untenable and amount to unconstitutional punishment. The author cites several legal precedents (Stephens, Weigand, Jackson, Melendez-Carrions) to support the claim that her inability to properly review discovery and the prolonged nature of her detention violate due process, especially given the government is seeking a life sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00019847.jpg
This legal document argues for the temporary pretrial release of Ms. Maxwell, citing legal statute § 3142(i) and precedent from the Robertson case. The argument centers on the necessity of release for trial preparation, highlighting the complexity of the case, the millions of pages of discovery documents, and the practical impossibilities of reviewing them while incarcerated before her trial set for July.
DOJ-OGR-00019844.jpg
This legal document argues for the release of Ms. Maxwell from the Metropolitan Correction Center (MDC), asserting that her continued detention is unconstitutional. The filing claims that unsafe conditions at the facility, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, prevent her from adequately consulting with her lawyers and preparing her defense. A footnote describes the attorney visiting rooms at MDC as a 'death trap' due to poor air filtration, highlighting the risks faced by both inmates and legal counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00019836.jpg
This legal document, dated April 1, 2021, argues that Ms. Maxwell is being subjected to unconstitutional and inappropriate treatment by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The author claims this treatment, which includes sleep deprivation, inedible food, and unnecessary suicide watch, is a direct result of the death of Epstein and is preventing Ms. Maxwell from adequately preparing for her trial. The charges against her are noted to be from 1994-1997 and involve three anonymous accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00019834.jpg
This document serves as the 'Issues Presented' section of a legal filing dated April 1, 2021, related to Case 21-58. It outlines two main arguments: 1) Ms. Maxwell cannot prepare her defense due to horrific detention conditions (sleep deprivation, isolation, surveillance, inadequate technology for discovery review, and poor sustenance), and 2) The trial court erred in denying bail based on 'anonymous, unconfronted, hearsay accusations' provided by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00019669.jpg
This document, dated October 8, 2020, is the final page of a legal filing (Case 20-3061, Document 94) containing two certifications. Adam Mueller certifies that the brief complies with court rules regarding word count and typeface, while Nicole Simmons certifies that she has filed 'Ms. Maxwell’s Reply Brief' with the court and served it to all counsel of record via the CM/ECF system.
DOJ-OGR-00019667.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, arguing on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text requests that the appellate court reverse a district court order denying Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. It references the 'Martindell' legal standard and accuses the government of trying to shield itself from a forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019665.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, likely an appellate brief filed by Ms. Maxwell's defense. It argues that Judge Preska (civil case) is evaluating unsealing documents without knowing critical facts obscured by a criminal protective order overseen by Judge Nathan. The defense contends that unless the order is modified to allow sharing information under seal, Maxwell's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury will be prejudiced by the release of deposition materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019663.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on October 8, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (likely the 2nd Circuit appeal). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell should be allowed to challenge the government's investigative methods before Judge Nathan and that deposition materials should remain sealed to preserve this challenge. The text references a dispute over a protective order and cites Rule 6(e) regarding grand jury witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00019662.jpg
This legal document is a page from an argument brief filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It contends that the government improperly failed to notify her of subpoenas by not following the precedent set in the Martindell case. The brief refutes the government's justification, which relies on grand jury secrecy under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), arguing that the government's actions were not excused by the rule.
DOJ-OGR-00019661.jpg
This legal document, page 15 of a filing in Case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, presents arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It contends that her immediate appeal falls within the 'collateral order doctrine' and will not delay her criminal trial, contrary to the government's suggestion. The document also puts forward an alternative request for the appellate court to issue a writ of mandamus, arguing that Judge Nathan abused her discretion in a previous ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00019658.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It states that her reliance on a protective order is justified, especially in the context of a grand jury investigation. The filing also asserts that information about how the government bypassed an individual named Martindell is relevant and that Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate this issue before Judge Nathan is essential for her due process and a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019657.jpg
This legal document from October 8, 2020, discusses legal arguments concerning Ms. Maxwell's deposition testimony from a civil case, which forms the basis for criminal charges against her. It references the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell', detailing how Giuffre's attorneys used a civil protective order to counter Maxwell's arguments about privacy and self-incrimination, leading her to testify rather than invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. The document also cites Judge Preska and the case 'Brown v. Maxwell' regarding the court's role in balancing access to legal materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019656.jpg
This page from a legal brief (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review Judge Preska's decision because Judge Nathan's order is unreviewable post-judgment. The text counters the Government's arguments regarding the unsealing of confidential criminal discovery materials and references a previous motion to consolidate cases. Significant portions of the text are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019654.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, argues against the government's position that Ms. Maxwell must wait until after her criminal trial to challenge certain judicial decisions. The filing asserts that the current appeal is the correct and only time to review Judge Preska's unsealing order from a related civil case, as a panel in the criminal case would lack jurisdiction. It also refutes the government's claim that a post-judgment appeal would be an effective remedy for premature unsealing of materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019653.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, arguing against the immediate unsealing of Ghislaine Maxwell's April 2016 deposition. The text asserts that Judge Preska's unsealing order must be reviewed immediately because a post-trial appeal would be too late to prevent public release, which cannot be undone ('re-sealed').
DOJ-OGR-00019650.jpg
This legal document is an introduction to a brief arguing against the government's position in an appeal. It clarifies that Ms. Maxwell's request is narrow: to share sealed information with Judge Preska and the appellate court about how prosecutors obtained her civil deposition material from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case. The brief suggests this information is crucial for the court's decision on unsealing the material and could impact Ms. Maxwell's ability to litigate in her separate criminal case.
| 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).
Legal consultation
Guards are described as feverishly writing while observing Ms. Maxwell during videoconferencing with her counsel.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
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.
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.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
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.
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
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Location tracking
Government located Maxwell by tracking her primary phone.
Rules and Regulations
Guards were the sole source of information; Maxwell was instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction.
Missed Call
Telephoned / Please Call
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.
Video conference
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
Defense Preparation
Reference to Maxwell's need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for defense.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity