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 | Organization closure | The TerraMar Project was closed after Epstein’s death to spare her partners from invasion of priv... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The upcoming trial for which the government is seeking pre-trial notice of evidence from the defe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Roberts talked to a young girl. The girl and Ms. Maxwell then went inside a s... | spa | View |
| N/A | Bail application | Ms. Maxwell has a renewed bail application, which is being supported by several individuals (sure... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | The witness (Alessi) saw the same girl from the spa arrive at a house and introduced her to Ms. M... | the house in Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial for which jurors were being selected, where the central issue was the credibility of ac... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Medical procedure/inspection | Immediately after receiving two nasal swab COVID tests, Ms. Maxwell was required to remove her ma... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Erasure of data | All of Ms. Maxwell’s legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | A jury selection process in White Plains that is alleged to have resulted in the systematic under... | White Plains | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Argument being made in favor of granting bond to Ms. Maxwell. | United States | View |
| N/A | Proposed action | Ms. Maxwell proposed to renounce her British and French citizenship. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Surveillance | Ongoing 15-minute light surveillance / disruptive flashlight surveillance of Ms. Maxwell's sleepi... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Threat | The MDC has threatened to place Ms. Maxwell in the SHU. | MDC | View |
| N/A | Proposed action | Ms. Maxwell proposed to place her and her spouse's assets into a monitored account. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Targeting of a person | The defendant identified and targeted a person named Virginia after seeing her in the Mar-a-Lago ... | Mar-a-Lago parking lot | View |
| N/A | Targeting of a person | The defendant worked with Epstein to identify and target a person named Jane. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A trip to New Mexico involving Jane and the defendant. Flight logs showed the defendant was present. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A renewed bail application was submitted for Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A previous bail hearing where the Court expressed concern that Ms. Maxwell lacked significant fam... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The government's case against Ms. Maxwell, which is alleged to be based entirely on the testimony... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the scope of a trial, arguing that introducing certain evidence about gove... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal act | Ms. Maxwell allegedly enticed Jane to travel across state lines with the intent that she would en... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Flight | Visoski describes his general duties during flights on Mr. Epstein's planes, including assisting ... | Mr. Epstein's private planes | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | A questioner (Q) conducts a direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi (A), regarding his recogn... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The transportation of Jane across state lines by Ms. Maxwell, with the alleged purpose of engagin... | Interstate commerce (across... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
A transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Judge that they should be allowed to suggest witnesses were manipulated by civil attorneys, citing a witness named 'Carolyn' whose detailed 2008 legal filings and depositions did not mention Ms. Maxwell, implying her involvement was fabricated later. The Court overrules the objection to this line of argumentation at the opening stage but asks for evidence that attorneys explicitly told witnesses what to say.
DOJ-OGR-00011654.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the jury must be carefully instructed regarding testimony about 'Accuser 2' and 'Accuser 3' to avoid convicting Maxwell based on 'New Mexico activity' rather than New York law violations. The Court (Judge) acknowledges the need for clarification regarding the 'enticement' charge versus the sexual activity itself.
DOJ-OGR-00011618.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding involving Ms. Maxwell. Her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that she be placed at the BOP facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program, which the court recommends to the Bureau of Prisons. The court also grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments against Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011617.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on July 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized' and she has received no money from it. The Court acknowledges she hasn't received the bequest but determines that other 'additional assets' make her able to pay the fine, and subsequently imposes the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00011616.jpg
This legal document is a transcript from a sentencing hearing on July 22, 2022, where a judge sentences Ms. Maxwell. The judge imposes five years of supervised release, a $750,000 fine, and a mandatory special assessment, justifying the fine by noting Ms. Maxwell's ability to pay due to a $10 million bequest she received from Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011615.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, detailing the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The judge, noting her lack of remorse, imposes a sentence of 240 months (20 years) imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The sentence is broken down by count, with all terms to run concurrently.
DOJ-OGR-00011614.jpg
This document is page 95 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. The judge rejects Maxwell's claims regarding poor treatment at the MDC and lack of preparation time, noting a pattern of dishonesty and 'deflection of blame' consistent with her perjury in a civil deposition. While acknowledging that Maxwell and her attorney Ms. Sternheim expressed sympathy for the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express acceptance of responsibility.
DOJ-OGR-00011613.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, in which a judge discusses sentencing factors for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge acknowledges that conditions at the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center) have been extremely difficult for all inmates due to the pandemic, and that Ms. Maxwell faced additional surveillance as a high-profile defendant. However, the judge explicitly rejects the defense's argument that Ms. Maxwell was singled out for uniquely harsh and punishing treatment.
DOJ-OGR-00011612.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a sentencing hearing for Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 22, 2022. The judge discusses the factors influencing the sentence, acknowledging mitigating aspects such as Ms. Maxwell's age (over 60), lack of prior convictions, charitable work, and positive letters from family and a fellow inmate. However, the judge states that her 'decade-long pattern of predatory activity' justifies a substantial sentence, even if she is not considered a continuing danger to the public.
DOJ-OGR-00011610.jpg
This page from a court transcript details the abuse inflicted upon a victim named Carolyn by the defendant, specifically noting that the defendant exploited Carolyn's past trauma. It further describes a broader pattern of criminal conduct by Ms. Maxwell and Epstein involving the victimization of multiple underage girls and acknowledges the bravery of the victims who testified at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011609.jpg
This document is page 90 of a sentencing transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details the judge or prosecutor's argument regarding the severity of Maxwell's punishment, citing her 'heinous and predatory' conduct described by the Probation Department. Specific details are provided regarding the abuse of a victim named 'Jane' (age 14), including grooming tactics, instruction on how to sexually please Epstein, and direct sexual abuse by both Epstein and Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011608.jpg
This document is page 89 of a sentencing transcript filed on July 22, 2022, involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The presiding judge explains that Maxwell is being sentenced specifically for her own role in enticing, transporting, and trafficking underage girls (some as young as 14) for sexual abuse by and with Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing that she is not being punished merely as a proxy for Epstein but for her own direct participation in the abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00011602.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely from a sentencing hearing for a defendant named Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 22, 2022. The speaker, presumably her attorney, argues for a lenient sentence by highlighting her age (over 60), lack of prior criminal history, and positive contributions while incarcerated, such as tutoring fellow inmates in the MDC. The attorney contrasts her good character with the 'terrible conduct' for which she is being sentenced.
DOJ-OGR-00011601.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding, specifically a sentencing hearing for Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell) dated July 22, 2022. The speaker, presumably her defense attorney, is arguing for a more lenient sentence by presenting mitigating factors from her life. These factors include a traumatic family tragedy involving her eldest brother's death, a difficult upbringing with a 'narcissistic, brutish, and punitive father,' and the long-term 'controlling, demanding, manipulative' influence of Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011574.jpg
This is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion about the order of statements. Counsel Ms. Moe asks the judge if victims should speak before or after the main parties. The judge clarifies the intended sequence is government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, to which all parties present agree before the court takes a luncheon recess.
DOJ-OGR-00011573.jpg
This page from a court transcript (case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details sentencing proceedings for Ms. Maxwell. The Judge rejects the claim that Maxwell is indigent, citing $22 million in assets reported in 2020 and a lack of documentation regarding her marriage/divorce, and states an intention to impose a fine. The Judge also notes the government is not seeking restitution, finds no grounds for downward departures from sentencing guidelines, and calls for a lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00011572.jpg
This document is page 53 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of assets in the Presentence Report (PSR), specifically noting a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge determines that Maxwell has failed to establish an inability to pay a fine, citing the bequest and $3.8 million in assets reported in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00011551.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker argues against the assertion that Ms. Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen. The speaker cites trial testimony from witnesses Carolyn and Juan Alessi to support the claim that Kellen replaced Maxwell in the role of scheduling massage appointments, indicating a 'clear break' and a replacement of duties rather than ongoing supervision.
DOJ-OGR-00011549.jpg
This court transcript excerpt from July 22, 2022, details an argument by a prosecutor, Ms. Moe, to the Court. Ms. Moe is establishing that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, held a leadership and supervisory role over Sarah Kellen within a criminal conspiracy, positioning Maxwell higher in the scheme's hierarchy than Kellen, who was an assistant to both Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011548.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on July 22, 2022, detailing a legal argument between a government representative, Ms. Moe, and the Court. The discussion focuses on establishing the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, as an 'organizer or leader' for sentencing purposes by proving she exercised a supervisory role over at least one other criminally responsible participant. The government specifically identifies Sarah Kellen as the individual supervised by Ms. Maxwell, based on evidence from the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011534.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 22, 2022, details a judge's ruling on objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge overrules objections regarding characterizations of the offense and Maxwell's responsibility for sexualized massages, citing trial evidence that contradicts her claims. The ruling concludes that evidence established Ms. Maxwell's recruitment of a person named Virginia, which initiated a broader recruitment scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00011528.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 22, 2022, details a judge's decision to overrule objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge cites trial testimony from witnesses named Annie, Jane, Virginia, and Carolyn as evidence supporting the characterization that Maxwell and Epstein isolated minor girls and developed a multi-level recruitment scheme. The scheme allegedly began with Maxwell recruiting Virginia, who then recruited Carolyn, who in turn recruited others.
DOJ-OGR-00005754.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing, dated October 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The author argues that the Court should prohibit any law enforcement witness from giving expert opinion testimony because the officers were not properly disclosed as experts under Rule 16(1)(G), and such testimony would violate Rule 702. The argument extends to witnesses called by either the government or the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00005753.jpg
This legal document, page 7 of a filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE dated October 29, 2021, argues against the admissibility of certain types of expert opinion testimony from law enforcement officers. Citing numerous legal precedents, the document contends that testimony regarding alleged conspiracies, coded communications, witness credibility, and a defendant's mental state (specifically mentioning Ms. Maxwell) constitutes improper expert opinion. The argument concludes that such testimony is particularly prejudicial because juries may give undue weight to evidence presented by government agents.
DOJ-OGR-00005734.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal motion filed on October 29, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. In the document, Maxwell's defense requests that the Court exclude evidence seized during a search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005, as well as Government Exhibit 295 (an affidavit). The page cites Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts regarding the admission of out-of-court affidavits.
| 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