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 | N/A | Rodgers visited Maxwell's 59th Street apartment | 59th Street near Columbus C... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding 'similar acts' evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing of Ms. Maxwell | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell talking to Virginia Roberts after a treatment. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell sat for two depositions. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal indictment alleging Ms. Maxwell committed perjury. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell met Ms. Roberts at Mar-a-Lago. | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transportation of Jane | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged mistreatment including sleep deprivation, constant surveillance, and lack of food/water. | Detention Facility | View |
| N/A | N/A | Isolation and Surveillance of Ghislaine Maxwell | Detention Facility (New York) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Targeting of Virginia at Mar-a-Lago. | Mar-a-Lago parking lot | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge (The moment the judge read these instructions to the jury). | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Instruction No. 21 regarding Count Four | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transportation of an Individual Under the Age of 17 to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity | Interstate commerce | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing where the judge discusses factors for punishment. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell obtained expert reports on extradition law | United Kingdom / France | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding Counts Two, Four, and Six. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Carolyn and Virginia arrive at Jeffrey Epstein's house for the first time and are greeted in the ... | Jeffrey Epstein's house (Ki... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Security Sweep | Ms. Maxwell's house | View |
| N/A | N/A | Guards shine flashlights into cell every 15 minutes. | MDC Cell | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell moves to various apartments. | New York (implied by 59th st) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Arrest of Ms. Maxwell | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussions regarding divorce between Maxwell and spouse. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Change in circumstance leading to decision not to divorce (context heavily redacted). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transportation of Jane in interstate commerce | Interstate commerce / Acros... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010276.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing from March 2022 in the US v. Maxwell case. The defense argues that a Jury Note regarding Count Four indicates the jury was considering convicting Maxwell based on intent for sexual activity occurring in New Mexico, which the defense claims raises a 'constructive amendment' issue. The text disputes the government's interpretation of the note, accusing the government of inserting a comma to alter the meaning and downplay the jury's focus on New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00010275.jpg
This legal document is a filing, likely from the defense, arguing that Ms. Maxwell's conviction on Count Four was improper. The argument centers on a 'Jury Note' which suggests the jury may have convicted her based solely on her intent for sexual activity to occur in New Mexico, without finding intent for abuse in New York, which the defense claims constitutes a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment. The filing accuses the government of mischaracterizing the Jury Note to obscure this issue.
DOJ-OGR-00010274.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022, arguing that the jury in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial had a fundamental misunderstanding of 'Count Four.' The defense argues that the jury asked if intent for sexual activity in New Mexico was sufficient for a conviction based on 'violation of New York law,' and asserts the Court failed to properly correct this misunderstanding.
DOJ-OGR-00010268.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 647) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The filing outlines arguments that the Court erred in its response to a jury note regarding intent requirements for Count Four and argues that the three conspiracy counts are multiplicitous because they stem from a single criminal scheme. It concludes with a request for the Court to grant Maxwell's other motions.
DOJ-OGR-00010241.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022, involving post-trial questioning of a juror regarding potential bias. The judge asks the juror if their personal experience with prior sexual abuse affected their ability to be impartial, assess witness credibility, or if they held bias against Ms. Maxwell or in favor of the government. The juror consistently denies any bias or inability to judge the evidence solely on its merits.
DOJ-OGR-00009899.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Juror No. 50 should not be granted discovery, specifically a copy of his questionnaire, in advance of a hearing regarding his alleged misconduct. The filing contends that the juror's presence on the jury violated Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial, constituting a reversible error that should lead the Court to vacate the verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022, arguing for a new trial or evidentiary hearing based on juror misconduct. The defense argues that a second juror (besides Juror No. 50) failed to disclose being a victim of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire, citing a New York Times article and Juror No. 50's statements as evidence. The document also argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to discovery regarding communications outside of deliberations, specifically referencing social media material.
DOJ-OGR-00009897.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that the court should investigate potential misconduct by two jurors. The motion contends that Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not bar an inquiry into Juror No. 50's alleged bias and false statements, and that a second juror who alerted the New York Times about being a victim of childhood sexual abuse should also be questioned. The argument is that failing to investigate these matters violates Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009896.jpg
This legal filing argues that the government is mischaracterizing the record concerning Juror No. 50's responses during jury selection. The document contends that, unlike other jurors, Juror No. 50's specific claim of childhood sexual abuse was directly relevant to the case, and had he disclosed his belief that memory works 'like a video-tape' during the trial, the Court would have questioned his ability to fairly evaluate expert testimony on the topic.
DOJ-OGR-00009895.jpg
This document is page 26 of a legal filing from March 11, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the Court must conduct a broad inquiry into Juror No. 50's potential bias and intent, asserting that the juror has a history of giving false answers. It contrasts Juror No. 50 with Jurors 189 and 239, who properly disclosed details of past sexual abuse in written questionnaires, though the specific details of that abuse are redacted in this document.
DOJ-OGR-00009891.jpg
This legal document presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, asserting that Juror No. 50 engaged in misconduct by providing false answers under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The filing refutes the government's counterarguments, claiming the juror's dishonesty about being a victim of sexual abuse and his use of Twitter demonstrates implied bias and a deliberate pattern of falsehoods that should have resulted in his exclusion from the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009887.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a court case involving Ms. Maxwell. The text argues against the government's position by analyzing several legal precedents, including McDonough, Shaoul, Langford, and Greer, concerning the standard for proving juror bias and granting a new trial. The author contends that a deliberate falsehood by a juror is not a prerequisite for a new trial, citing cases that establish a multi-part test where juror dishonesty is one of several factors to consider.
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key 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 emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.
DOJ-OGR-00009885.jpg
Page 16 of a legal filing (Document 644) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed March 11, 2022. The defense argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial or hearing because Juror No. 50 failed to truthfully answer voir dire questions 25 and 48, preventing the defense from challenging the juror for cause. The text disputes the government's position on the burden of proof, citing precedents such as McDonough, Langford, and United States v. Stewart.
DOJ-OGR-00009884.jpg
This legal document page argues that a new trial is warranted when a biased juror is seated, regardless of whether the juror's false answers during voir dire were deliberate or inadvertent. It cites several Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases, including McDonough, Langford, and Leonard, to support this interpretation and refutes the government's contrary reading of these precedents. The argument centers on the idea that the key issue is juror bias, not the intent behind a juror's dishonesty.
DOJ-OGR-00009883.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that she does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's false answers during jury selection were deliberately made. The document cites multiple legal precedents to support the argument that even an honest but mistaken answer from a juror can be grounds for a new trial, especially when it raises questions of juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009882.jpg
This legal document argues that the government's reliance on the Tanner and Ianniello precedents is misplaced in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that unlike those cases, which dealt with conduct during deliberations, this case involves a juror (Juror No. 50) who gave false answers during voir dire—conduct outside the jury room—and therefore an evidentiary hearing is warranted. The document further notes that the juror has actively sought public attention, which is how his false answers became known.
DOJ-OGR-00009880.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial based on juror bias. The filing refutes the government's arguments concerning 'finality' and the 'disfavor' of new trial motions. It asserts that the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was violated, citing legal precedents that establish the seating of a biased juror as a structural error requiring the conviction to be reversed.
DOJ-OGR-00009878.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was denied a fair trial because a juror, Juror No. 50, failed to disclose his history as a victim of child abuse during jury selection. The filing contends that despite the Court's assurances that it would identify dishonest jurors, Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer direct questions on the topic, and his inclusion on the jury was prejudicial to the defense. Had the juror been truthful, the defense would have immediately challenged him for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009877.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 644) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that 'Juror No. 50' committed misconduct by failing to disclose a history of child sexual abuse, which mirrors the charges against Maxwell. The defense contends that the government's comparison to other jurors who experienced minor harassment is misleading and urges the Court to investigate the claim to ensure Maxwell's right to an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009876.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing against the government's proposal for a limited evidentiary hearing regarding Juror No. 50. The defense contends that the juror's presence, due to alleged false answers and bias, requires a reversal, citing Supreme Court precedent in 'United States v. Martinez-Salazar'. The filing asserts that the government's proposed narrow hearing would violate Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights and argues that precedent from 'United States v. Daugerdas' supports her entitlement to a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009793.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a judge questioning a potential juror for a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The juror states their only prior knowledge of Ms. Maxwell came from a CNN news report about Jeffrey Epstein's death, which mentioned he had a girlfriend. The juror affirms their ability to disregard this prior information and judge the case solely on the evidence presented in court.
DOJ-OGR-00009777.jpg
This document is a juror questionnaire from a case involving Ms. Maxwell, filed on March 24, 2022. Juror 50 states they have not formed any opinions about Ms. Maxwell that would prevent them from being impartial. The juror confirms they had previously heard about Jeffrey Epstein from CNN, specifically recalling reports of his death and that he was in jail awaiting trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009756.jpg
This legal document, dated January 19, 2022, argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied her constitutional right to a fair trial because at least one juror, identified as Juror No. 50, was dishonest during the jury selection (voir dire) process. The filing requests that the Court either vacate the jury's verdict and order a new trial, or alternatively, hold an evidentiary hearing to question all twelve jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009754.jpg
This document is page 62 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It presents legal arguments citing 'Brown v. Maxwell' and 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.' regarding the definition of 'judicial documents' and the presumption of public access. The filing argues specifically against releasing 'Juror No. 50's pleadings,' claiming that doing so would generate prejudicial publicity and infringe upon Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair 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 |
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