Ms. Maxwell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
Virginia
|
Perpetrator victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Friend |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Unspecified |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
opponent in the Civil Litigation
|
Adversarial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Acquaintance |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Client |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Adversarial |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Counsel
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
the O'Neills
|
Business associate |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial judge defendant |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Grumbridge
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Espinosa
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Judicial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
anonymous accusers
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Julié
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
her counsel
|
Client |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Perpetrator victim alleged |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Perpetrator victim |
6
|
2 |
| 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-00002911.jpg
This legal document is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the court, filed on April 7, 2021, concerning her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim argues that the government's public updates on Maxwell's confinement conditions are detrimental, fueling negative media attention and jeopardizing her right to a fair trial. The letter requests that any future updates be limited in scope and filed under seal to protect Ms. Maxwell's privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00002885.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, dated March 31, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that any delay in the trial schedule is the fault of the government for filing a late superseding indictment despite previous assurances (cited from a July 14, 2020 transcript) that they did not anticipate doing so. The defense claims this expansion of the case prejudices Maxwell, prolongs her detention, and transforms the proceedings from a 'two-week' trial into a much longer affair.
DOJ-OGR-00002731.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 16, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim concerning the detention conditions of her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim argues that Maxwell's harsh treatment at the MDC, including constant surveillance and deprivation, is a detrimental overreaction by the Bureau of Prisons following Jeffrey Epstein's death. The letter claims these conditions are severely impacting Maxwell's health and her ability to prepare for her defense, amounting to what Maxwell feels is "Pretrial Punishment."
DOJ-OGR-00002720.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It contains a series of questions (numbered 27-29) directed at the Government, seeking specific details about allegations against Ms. Maxwell. The questions ask for clarification on who she was allegedly concealing crimes from, the specific acts of abuse she allegedly lied about, and why her statements are considered material to the perjury charges in the Superseding Indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00002718.jpg
This legal document, a "List of Particulars" filed on February 4, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, is a series of requests for the prosecution to provide specific details about allegations against Ms. Maxwell. The requests seek information such as dates, locations, and specific actions related to Ms. Maxwell's alleged involvement with Jeffrey Epstein in the grooming and sexual abuse of individuals identified as Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2. The document also requests clarification on alleged travel across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters.
DOJ-OGR-00002710.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN on February 4, 2021. The motion requests the court to order the government to disclose favorable evidence and, more significantly, to hold a pretrial hearing to determine the admissibility of statements from alleged co-conspirators, particularly the deceased Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues that admitting such testimonial statements without the possibility of cross-examination would be highly prejudicial and cites legal precedents like the 'Geaney rule' to support the need for a prior hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00002703.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is part of a defense argument for Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the indictment is vague and lacks crucial information, citing redacted "flight records" and "diary entries" as examples of information that leads to a dead-end. The filing argues that the absence of specific dates for alleged events, such as when 'Accuser-3' provided massages to Epstein, and the failure to explain how Ms. Maxwell's statements constituted perjury, make it impossible for her to prepare an adequate defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002687.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell's alleged conduct with 'Accuser-3' in England falls outside the scope of the charged conspiracy. It cites the case 'United States v. Hsia' as precedent for distinguishing between a core conspiracy and separate acts of concealment or cover-up. The document contends that the object of the conspiracy was to cause individuals to travel for unlawful acts with Epstein, and Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3 did not further this specific goal.
DOJ-OGR-00002684.jpg
This document is a page from a legal motion filed by the defense in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on February 4, 2021. The defense argues that all references to 'Accuser-3' in the indictment should be stricken as 'surplusage' because they are irrelevant to the specific charges of interstate transportation for illegal sexual activity and are unduly prejudicial. The text cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d) and case law to support the argument that these '20-year-old allegations' do not meet the legal requirements for inclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00002683.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues against allegations in an indictment concerning Ms. Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3. The defense contends that the alleged events, including Maxwell introducing Accuser-3 to Epstein, occurred in London between 1994 and 1995, by which time Accuser-3 was 16, the legal age of consent in England. Therefore, the document posits that the alleged "sexual abuse" by Epstein was lawful conduct and cannot be considered an "overt act" in furtherance of a conspiracy, especially as no travel was alleged to have been caused by Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002681.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues for the removal of allegations concerning 'Accuser-3' from her indictment. The defense contends that these allegations are irrelevant to the charges of enticing travel for unlawful sexual activity, as there is no claim Accuser-3 ever traveled for such a purpose, and that the alleged activity with Epstein was not unlawful because Accuser-3 was over the age of consent in England. The filing asserts that the government's inclusion of these claims is a prejudicial attempt to demonstrate a propensity for wrongdoing, in violation of federal evidence rules.
DOJ-OGR-00032892.jpg
This Palm Beach Police Department incident report, dated April 20, 2006, documents interviews with Jeffrey Epstein's former employees, Juan and Maria Alessi, conducted on November 21, 2005. The Alessis describe observing numerous young masseuses, some appearing to be sixteen or seventeen, visiting Epstein's home for daily massages. Juan Alessi, the former house manager, also reported finding and cleaning sex toys, including a 'massager/vibrator and a long rubber penis,' in the sink after the massages, providing key witness testimony about the activities occurring at Epstein's residence.
DOJ-OGR-00014480.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In this excerpt, the judge directs Ms. Williams to bring in the jury and then instructs the jury to give their full attention to Ms. Menninger, who is about to deliver the closing argument on behalf of her client, Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00014478.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the prosecution's closing argument regarding 'grooming-by-proxy' for Jeffrey Epstein; the Judge overrules this, clarifying that while experts couldn't testify to it, lawyers could argue it based on evidence. Prosecutor Ms. Moe then discusses Government Exhibit 52, arguing it demonstrates knowledge and intent because the listed individuals were obviously not 'real masseuses.'
DOJ-OGR-00014477.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca requests a mistrial, arguing that the government violated a limiting instruction regarding 'Exhibit 52' (pages from a book) during closing arguments by using hearsay to prove the truth of the matter asserted—specifically linking names in the book to 'sexualized massages' described by a witness named Jane and implying Ms. Maxwell knew the individuals were minors. Pagliuca alternatively requests a curative instruction to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00005230.jpg
This legal filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense counsel, Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell's right to prepare her defense has been compromised. The document details how the Government refused to hand-deliver a hard drive of evidence to the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), instead using FedEx, and how the MDC then delayed giving the materials to Ms. Maxwell for several days. Counsel requests the Court's intervention due to the MDC's alleged inefficiency and mishandling of legal mail.
DOJ-OGR-00005228.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated October 14, 2021, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter informs the court of the defense's intent to file a Rule 412 motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell by November 15, 2021. It justifies this timeline by stating it is essential for counsel to adequately consult with their client and prepare the necessary legal research and procedures.
DOJ-OGR-00005227.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of Ms. Maxwell. The defense counsel argues against the government's proposed deadline for a Rule 412 motion, requesting more time to review over 8,000 pages of recently disclosed material and witness information. The defense asserts that a deadline before November 15 is unreasonable given the volume of new evidence and the defendant's custodial status.
DOJ-OGR-00005204.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 12, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, is a joint request from the prosecution (Government) and the defense to the Court. Both parties ask that only jurors with availability beyond the Christmas holiday be selected for the trial. The defense estimates its case will last approximately two weeks but notes this may change after reviewing late-night disclosures from the Government, which the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, had not yet received due to delivery issues at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00002790.jpg
This document page argues for the release of Ms. Maxwell on bail, asserting that proposed conditions, including renouncing foreign citizenship and strict asset monitoring, are sufficient to mitigate flight risk. It contends that her continued detention is prejudicial, impairing her physical health and ability to prepare for trial, while a footnote details specific issues with discovery access, mail delays, and unsafe visiting conditions at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00002788.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 23, 2021, argues that the government's case against Ms. Maxwell is weakening, thereby diminishing her flight risk. The filing points to several weaknesses, including a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that may immunize Maxwell, the government's concession that it cannot prove Maxwell or Epstein caused 'Accuser-3' to travel, and evidence that prosecutors misled a judge. The document suggests that despite the government's escalating claims about her flight risk, the deteriorating case against her warrants a reevaluation of her detention.
DOJ-OGR-00002785.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 171) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 23, 2021. The defense argues that Maxwell is not a flight risk because she is willing to renounce both her French and British citizenships and waive extradition rights. The text cites a legal opinion by Mr. Julié regarding French extradition law (Article 696-4) to support the claim that she would not be protected from extradition if she fled to France after renouncing citizenship.
DOJ-OGR-00002783.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines proposed bail conditions for Ms. Maxwell, including 24/7 private security and strict supervision by Pretrial Services. It argues against the government's opposition to bail and asserts that the District Court retains jurisdiction to decide on the matter despite a pending appeal in the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00008812.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing from January 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the defense's position requesting a delay in sentencing due to a motion for a new trial based on misconduct by Juror #50. The defense argues that participating in a presentence investigation would violate Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights while the motion for a retrial is pending.
DOJ-OGR-00008806.jpg
This legal document, dated January 5, 2022, is a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. It indicates that Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell) suggests examining deliberating jurors to evaluate their conduct and is in the process of drafting a Rule 33 motion. The document lists several attorneys and their respective law firms representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
| 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 |
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'.
Needing something
Early on, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness by beeper if she needed something.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
Upcoming flight information
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via beeper to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
Legal matters
The document alleges that all of Ms. Maxwell's legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Legal and non-legal mail
Delivery of her mail was significantly delayed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity