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-00014604.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a page from jury instructions in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. It details the government's burden of proof for several counts, including proving that Ms. Maxwell knew an individual named Jane was under 17 and that a significant purpose of transporting her across state lines was for illegal sexual activity. The document clarifies that the intended illegal act did not need to be accomplished for the defendant to be found guilty, as long as the intent was present at the time of transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00014603.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing jury instructions for 'Count Four' in the case against Ms. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The instruction explains that the government must prove Ms. Maxwell knowingly transported a minor named 'Jane' across state lines with the intent for her to engage in illegal sexual activity violating New York Penal Law. The document clarifies that this illegal intent did not need to be Ms. Maxwell's sole purpose for the transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00014601.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a jury instruction from a criminal case dated August 10, 2022. It outlines the legal elements the government must prove to find the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty of Count Four: knowingly transporting a minor named Jane across state lines for illegal sexual activity, as defined by Title 18 of the United States Code and prosecutable under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00014594.jpg
This document is page 194 of a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) containing jury instructions for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details Counts Three through Six of the indictment, specifying charges of conspiracy, transportation of minors for illegal sexual activity, and sex trafficking. Specific victims 'Jane' (1994-1997) and 'Carolyn' (2001-2004) are named in relation to specific counts.
DOJ-OGR-00014591.jpg
This document is a portion of a legal instruction, likely for a jury, from the criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It clarifies that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, is presumed innocent and does not bear the burden of proving her innocence; instead, the government must prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each charge. The document also provides a detailed definition of 'reasonable doubt,' emphasizing it must be based on reason and evidence, not speculation or sympathy.
DOJ-OGR-00014590.jpg
This document is a page from a set of jury instructions for the criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It directs the jury on core legal principles, emphasizing that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, is entitled to a fair trial, is presumed innocent, and that the government bears the entire burden of proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00014589.jpg
This document is page 189 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, containing jury instructions (Instruction No. 5: Improper considerations) for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text instructs the jury to base their verdict solely on evidence and explicitly prohibits discrimination or bias based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or economic circumstances regarding Ms. Maxwell or any witnesses. It also defines and warns against the influence of unconscious bias and public opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00014559.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe, regarding the permissible scope of closing arguments made by the defense attorney, Ms. Menninger. The core issue is whether Ms. Menninger improperly argued that the government was substituting the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein, potentially violating the court's prior rulings on how Epstein could be mentioned in relation to witness credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00014553.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a portion of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely the defense attorney for a Ms. Maxwell. Menninger explains the legal standard of "reasonable doubt" to the jury, urging them to consider not just the evidence presented but also the lack of evidence, and to acquit her client if they would hesitate to make an important personal decision based on the quality of information provided by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00014552.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding, specifically a summation by an attorney, Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense. She is instructing the jury that the burden of proof lies entirely with the government to prove every element of the charges against her client, Ms. Maxwell, beyond a reasonable doubt. Ms. Menninger emphasizes that if the government fails to meet this high standard on any part of any charge, the jury must acquit.
DOJ-OGR-00011750.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Visoski, who was a pilot for Mr. Epstein. Visoski testifies that identifying every passenger by name was not a priority for domestic flights; knowing the total number of people was more important. He indicates that passenger information was often relayed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, or secretaries, and that it was not his specific job to record the name of every person on board.
DOJ-OGR-00011745.jpg
This document is a page of court testimony from a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. Visoski testifies that Ghislaine Maxwell's frequency of flying on Jeffrey Epstein's planes decreased around 2004-2005. The witness then positively identifies Ms. Maxwell, the defendant, in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00020114.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing filed on December 23, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that Maxwell and her spouse have pledged all their assets and that her spouse has liquidated investments to support the bond, countering the government's argument that she is a flight risk or 'adept at hiding.' The text also disputes government claims regarding the verification of the spouse's financial information.
DOJ-OGR-00020112.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues against the government's assertions in a bail proceeding. It claims that a pre-arrest discussion of divorce with her spouse was a protective measure, not an indication of a weak relationship, and that their bond is a strong tie to the country. The document also defends Ms. Maxwell's financial disclosures, stating the government has not contested the accuracy of her detailed financial report and is instead baselessly arguing she deceived the Court and Pretrial Services.
DOJ-OGR-00020111.jpg
This document is a page from a defense filing arguing for the release of Ms. Maxwell on bail. It asserts that the government has failed to justify continued detention, pointing to new evidence of Maxwell's strong ties to the U.S., specifically through her spouse and friends who have offered support, contradicting earlier government claims.
DOJ-OGR-00020109.jpg
This document is page 2 (filed page 6) of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Court should grant bail because the government has conceded its case relies almost exclusively on the testimony of three unidentified witnesses regarding events from over 25 years ago, lacking the 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence' previously promised. The defense asserts that existing documentary evidence pertains to Jeffrey Epstein rather than Maxwell, though specific government concessions on this point are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00020105.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, dated December 23, 2020, likely related to a bail application. The arguments outlined challenge the government's case by highlighting its reliance on limited witness testimony, asserting Ms. Maxwell's strong ties to the U.S. (including her spouse), her full financial disclosure for a bond, and the low probability of her being a flight risk. The filing also leverages a recent COVID surge at the MDC facility as an additional reason for granting bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020053.jpg
This legal document discusses the case against Ms. Maxwell and the government's investigation following Epstein's death. It argues that the case against Ms. Maxwell was an afterthought and lacks corroboration, supporting her desire to clear her name and be granted bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020051.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 25, 2021, is part of a court case and argues that the discovery provided by the government fails to corroborate allegations of "grooming" or a conspiracy involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. It specifically challenges the government's claims about having incriminating "diary entries" and "flight records," suggesting the evidence produced is minimal and does not support the prosecution's narrative presented at a bail hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00020047.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell by citing several past U.S. court cases where defendants waived extradition rights to demonstrate they were not a flight risk. It then introduces expert reports, specifically one from U.K. barrister David Perry, which conclude it is highly unlikely Ms. Maxwell could successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France back to the United States, further supporting the argument that she is not a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020046.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. The argument centers on her high public profile, which would make fleeing difficult, and her willingness to sign irrevocable waivers of extradition for both the United Kingdom and France. The document cites the case of United States v. Cirillo as a precedent for using such waivers as a condition for release.
DOJ-OGR-00020043.jpg
This legal document is a filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense team arguing that she was not trying to avoid arrest or hide from law enforcement. The defense claims they would have arranged a self-surrender if requested and that her actions during the arrest, such as moving to an interior room and wrapping a phone in foil, were pre-arranged security measures to protect herself from the press, not to evade officers. A new statement from the head of her security company is presented as evidence to support this claim.
DOJ-OGR-00020042.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell was not a flight risk prior to her arrest. It asserts that she intentionally moved to New Hampshire to be within driving distance of New York prosecutors and that her defense counsel was in regular communication with the government for months. The filing aims to counter the government's portrayal of her as a fugitive who was hiding and changing locations.
DOJ-OGR-00020038.jpg
This legal document, filed on January 29, 2021, argues for Ms. Maxwell to be granted bail. It asserts that she has been financially transparent and was not hiding from the government prior to her arrest, but was instead seeking privacy to protect herself and her family from an intense media frenzy and physical threats that escalated dramatically after Epstein's arrest in July 2019. The filing uses data from LexisNexis to demonstrate the sharp increase in media articles about her following Epstein's arrest as evidence for her need to seek seclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00020028.jpg
This legal document argues that the court should reconsider Ms. Maxwell's bail application based on new evidence. It cites legal precedents affirming the court's authority to reconsider such decisions and states that Ms. Maxwell has received over 2.7 million pages of discovery from the government since her initial hearing, which allegedly raises serious questions about the strength of the government's 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 |
Legal Emails
MDC allegedly prematurely deleted legal emails.
Civil Deposition
Testimony where the judge concluded dishonesty/perjury occurred.
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.
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.
Press approaching the house
The security guard radioed Ms. Maxwell to alert her that he believed the press was on the grounds and approaching the house.
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.
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.
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.
Legal matters
The document alleges that all of Ms. Maxwell's legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system.
Needing something
Early on, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness by beeper if she needed something.
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'.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Sniper threat
A high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was concern she would be shot by a sniper.
CorrLinks emails
Receipt of CorrLinks emails was significantly delayed and the emails were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
Ms. Maxwell's assets
An interview conducted after Ms. Maxwell's arrest where she reported her assets from memory, stating she believed she had approximately $3.8 million in assets.
Withdrawal of HMF
Mr. Markus informed HMF that he discussed HMF's withdrawal with Ms. Maxwell, and she consents to it.
Request for permission to share information
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Divorce
Discussed divorce to create distance and protect him from consequences of association.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity