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 | 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-00020007.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court is addressing defense arguments for release, comparing her situation to United States v. Friedman, but distinguishing it because Maxwell allegedly did not provide her whereabouts to the government despite staying in contact. The judge argues that Maxwell may not have realized the severity of the charges or the likelihood of prosecution until her actual indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00017449.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Visoski. An attorney questions Visoski about Ghislaine Maxwell's presence on flights with Mr. Epstein, using a document to refresh the witness's memory regarding specific flights to Interlochen that Maxwell may not have been on. Visoski confirms Epstein was always on the aircraft but is uncertain about Maxwell's presence on every trip.
DOJ-OGR-00017398.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Visoski. Visoski testifies that Mr. Epstein used a helicopter to travel between St. Thomas and Little St. James to avoid taking a boat. He also states that he, Ms. Maxwell, and other contract pilots flew the helicopter, and that Ms. Maxwell flew it "many times."
DOJ-OGR-00017395.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Visoski. Visoski testifies about working for Ms. Maxwell in the 2000s, describing visits to her Manhattan brownstone to handle luggage, sign expense reports, and install a home theater on the sixth floor. The witness also provides a layout description of the brownstone's lower levels.
DOJ-OGR-00017394.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Mr. Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. Visoski recounts his 30-year professional relationship with Ms. Maxwell, detailing her residences chronologically from a small apartment, to a larger one on 84th Street in the mid-1990s where he installed a home theater, and finally to a brownstone she purchased on 65th Street. He also confirms flying into the Charlotte Amalie airport in St. Thomas when Mr. Epstein was present on the island.
DOJ-OGR-00017376.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Visoski. Mr. Visoski identifies Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Kellen in two photographs (Government Exhibits 334 and 335) which are then admitted into evidence. He also testifies that he first visited Mr. Epstein's ranch in New Mexico in the mid-1990s, around the time it was purchased in approximately 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00017373.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. The witness describes the organizational hierarchy for Mr. Epstein's employees, stating Epstein was "number 1" and Ms. Maxwell was "number 2." According to the testimony, Ms. Maxwell was responsible for handling finances and office spending, and both she and Mr. Epstein employed their own personal assistants.
DOJ-OGR-00017361.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the moment the judge thanks and discharges the jury following the verdict. Defense counsel Ms. Sternheim requests the court wait on the presentence report and explicitly asks for a court order to ensure Ms. Maxwell receives a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00005616.jpg
This is page 7 of a legal argument filed by the defense in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that the Government failed to comply with Rule 404(b) notice requirements regarding the admission of certain evidence and testimony from a redacted female witness. The document contends that because the Government did not specify the reasoning or purpose for this evidence, it should be precluded from the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005611.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 385) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The text outlines arguments related to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), asserting that the Government failed to provide proper notice regarding evidence and that Maxwell requires additional time to respond to 'scant notice.' The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00005611).
DOJ-OGR-00005604.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, and dated October 18, 2021, is a motion from Ms. Maxwell's counsel in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The filing argues that the government has failed to produce co-conspirator statements, which has prejudiced Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial and violated her constitutional rights. As a remedy, her counsel requests the preclusion of these statements from the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005601.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues that the government's failure to disclose information about alleged coconspirators prevents a fair trial. The defense claims this failure makes it impossible to cross-examine witnesses effectively, especially since Jeffrey Epstein is deceased, and creates a risk of false testimony being introduced without challenge. This inability to confront coconspirator statements, combined with the age of the allegations, severely hampers the preparation of a defense.
DOJ-OGR-00005600.jpg
This legal document is a filing by Ms. Maxwell's defense team arguing that the government has violated a court order regarding pre-trial disclosure. The defense claims that instead of identifying specific co-conspirator statements as ordered, the government has improperly directed them to sift through hundreds of thousands of statements from devices seized from Epstein. This tactic, they argue, makes it impossible to prepare for trial and subverts the Court's intention to have such issues litigated in advance.
DOJ-OGR-00005599.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, involving Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that the government is evading a court order to identify specific co-conspirator statements by instead providing massive 'document dumps.' The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence and case law (Tracy, Daly, Tellier) regarding the admissibility of hearsay and the requirements for proving a conspiracy exists.
DOJ-OGR-00005519.jpg
This document is page 64 of a legal filing (Document 382) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues against government motions to exclude evidence regarding Maxwell's 'charitable works' and 'family history,' suggesting these may become relevant if the government opens those topics. Section X argues strongly against the government's request to preview the defense's evidence, using the metaphor of having 'hands tied behind their back and their mouths duct-taped,' while noting that accusers are testifying under anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00005517.jpg
This legal document is a filing by Ms. Maxwell's counsel arguing against the government's motion to limit the introduction of her statements at trial. The defense contends the motion is premature and improper because the government has not identified any specific hearsay statements it seeks to exclude. The filing asserts that the correct procedure is for the government to object to any potential hearsay testimony as it arises during the trial, allowing the Court to rule on admissibility in context.
DOJ-OGR-00005515.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is part of the case against Ms. Maxwell. It argues that evidence of Jeffrey Epstein acting alone or without Ms. Maxwell's knowledge should be admissible to counter the government's conspiracy charge. The filing distinguishes Ms. Maxwell's case from several other legal precedents cited by the government, claiming they are inapplicable to the current situation.
DOJ-OGR-00005513.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, arguing that the Court should deny the government's motion to compel her to provide pre-trial notice of certain evidence. The defense asserts there is no legal authority for this demand and that the relevant rules, specifically Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), place the burden of providing such notice on the prosecution, not the defendant. The document aims to prevent the defendant from having to disclose her evidence strategy concerning her alleged absence when Epstein committed abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00005512.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing against the government's request to preclude evidence of her 'good acts.' The defense asserts that evidence of Ms. Maxwell's absence during Mr. Epstein's alleged abuse of certain victims is admissible and crucial for demonstrating her lack of intent or knowledge, and that the government's motion to block this evidence is premature and legally flawed.
DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the defense in the case against Ms. Maxwell, arguing against the government's motion to preclude evidence related to its motives for prosecution. The defense asserts its right to present evidence about the timing of the charges against Maxwell in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death, not to claim 'vindictive prosecution,' but to challenge the thoroughness and reliability of the government's investigation. The defense argues that the government's motion is an overreach and an attempt to force the disclosure of their trial strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00005498.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a defense argument for the admissibility of evidence concerning the history of investigations into Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that explaining the timeline of the Florida and New York investigations, Epstein's 2019 indictment and death, and Maxwell's subsequent 2020 indictment is crucial for her defense and not confusing for a jury. The document refutes the government's concerns, arguing the narrative is straightforward and necessary to explain why Maxwell was not charged alongside Epstein initially.
DOJ-OGR-00005495.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 382) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It presents a legal argument citing case law (Kyles v. Whitley, Bowen v. Maynard) to support the admissibility of evidence regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), prior charging decisions, and the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues these elements are necessary to challenge the thoroughness and good faith of the government's investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00005373.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated October 22, 2021, containing proposed voir dire questions and jury instructions. It specifically highlights disputes between the Government and the Defense regarding whether potential jurors should be asked live questions about their knowledge of or dealings with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The text includes standard admonitions to jurors not to discuss the case and to report any outside communication attempts.
DOJ-OGR-00005343.jpg
This document is page 21 of a court filing (Document 367) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 22, 2021. It contains a draft juror questionnaire focusing on potential jurors' opinions on sex trafficking laws and personal history with sexual abuse. The document highlights a legal dispute where the Government objects to specific questions proposed by the Defense (highlighted in green text) regarding the jurors' personal victimization history, arguing they are inappropriate, while the Defense argues these questions are necessary to identify bias against Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00005339.jpg
This document is Page 17 of a blank Juror Questionnaire filed on October 22, 2021, for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains questions 10 through 12, which ask potential jurors about their prior knowledge of Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and whether any information they have heard would prevent them from being fair and impartial jurors.
| 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