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 | Foot massage | A foot massage where Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine) massaged one of Jeffrey's feet and instructed A. Far... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conversation | A conversation between Mr. Alessi and Ms. Maxwell regarding a booklet and associated work, which ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The District Court failed to hold a hearing on the scope of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | Ms. Maxwell can file an unredacted copy of the Motion to Consolidate only under seal in the crimi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Pandemic | The COVID-19 pandemic, which created harsh conditions for incarcerated individuals and is argued ... | federal prisons | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Conviction of Ms. Maxwell on Mann Act counts, which is being challenged on the basis that it may ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Observation | A witness observed Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and Ms. Maxwell's mother talking together. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The witness, a driver, drove a group to the airport and onto the tarmac. | the airport | View |
| N/A | Flight | The witness saw Jane get on a plane with others. | the airport | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | Alleged physical contact occurred, which the Court instructed was not 'illegal sexual activity' a... | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Civil case cited as 'Brown v. Maxwell', where the Court released summary judgment material. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Civil case cited as 'Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413'. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Deposition | Ms. Maxwell testified at two depositions instead of invoking her Fifth Amendment right. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Criminal investigation | A concern is mentioned that Ms. Giuffre would use documents from the civil action to support a cr... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Questioning/examination | An examiner asked Ms. Maxwell if she was aware of “sex toys” or “devices” used in “sexual activit... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Inmate check | MDC staff conduct targeted flashlight checks on Ms. Maxwell every 15 minutes during the night, wa... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Flight | A return flight from New Mexico, which Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have aided in. | from New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | The document provides instructions for the jury on how to deliberate on the six separate counts a... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Service visit | Witness would visit Ms. Maxwell's residences to pick up and return first aid kits that needed to ... | Ms. Maxwell's residences | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The document discusses preserving Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate an issue concerning the governm... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Discussion of the legal standards and burdens for pre-trial detention in the case against Ms. Max... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Ongoing criminal case, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, against Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | The future trial for which the defense is preparing and requesting information. | Court | View |
| N/A | Speech | Ms. Maxwell delivered a speech at the United Nations on topics related to ocean conservation. | United Nations | View |
| N/A | Public speaking | Ms. Maxwell gave TED Talks on topics related to ocean conservation. | N/A | 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 |
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
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
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via beeper to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
A booklet/checklist
Mr. Alessi recalls telling Ms. Maxwell that he would not confirm or do the work required by a booklet/checklist because it was too much work on top of his daily duties.
Travel arrangement for Jane
The document mentions an incident where 'allegedly Ms. Maxwell got on the phone and somehow arranged for Jane to get back to Palm Beach'.
CorrLinks emails
Ms. Maxwell's CorrLinks emails were allegedly erased by guards.
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.
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.
Legal matters
The document alleges that all of Ms. Maxwell's legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system.
Household duties
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.
Detention conditions
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.
Needing something
Early on, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness by beeper if she needed something.
Something that happened between her move from a large apa...
The document references prior conversations between the witness (Rodgers) and Ms. Maxwell, which are the basis for a question from the attorney.
Something that happened between her move from a large apa...
The document references prior conversations between the witness (Rodgers) and Ms. Maxwell, which are the basis for a question from the attorney.
Request to stay unseal proceedings
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Preska to stay the unseal proceedings to allow her to get permission to share confidential information from a criminal case.
Request for permission to share information
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Denial of request
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
Denial of stay
Judge Preska denied Ms. Maxwell's request for a stay, stating there was no factual basis.
Events in Ms. Maxwell's life, including her father's deat...
The transcript details a court examination where the witness, Rodgers, is asked about conversations they had with Ms. Maxwell regarding when she moved between various apartments and a townhouse after her father's death.
Setting up massage appointments
Carolyn testified that Ms. Maxwell would call her to arrange massage appointments, which was considered important evidence for sex trafficking charges.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
After beepers were no longer used, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via cell phone 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
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity