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 | Legal hearing | A detention hearing held by the district court where the government argued Ms. Maxwell was a flig... | district court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan denied motion to modify criminal protective order. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | An alleged conspiracy that Ms. Maxwell is accused of being a member of. The document outlines the... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | The alleged transportation of Jane in interstate commerce for the purpose of illegal sexual activ... | interstate / across state l... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell moved to consolidate appeals. | Appellate Court | View |
| N/A | Conspiracy | The Indictment charged a conspiracy between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell during a discrete tim... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the government's burden of proof at Ms. Maxwell's upcoming trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Change in travel pattern | Ms. Maxwell began spending less time flying on Mr. Epstein's planes. | Mr. Epstein's planes | View |
| N/A | Arrest | Arrest of Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Initial bail hearing for Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Alleged crime | The document describes the third element of 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Ac... | Across state lines | View |
| N/A | Recruitment | The defendant, Ms. Maxwell, recruited Virginia, which set a recruitment scheme in motion. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A judge overrules objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to paragraphs 79 and 81 of a doc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The criminal trial of Ms. Maxwell, where she is the defendant. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ongoing civil litigation between Ms. Maxwell and many of the government's potential witnesses. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Arrest | Ms. Maxwell's arrest, which occurred prior to the date of this document. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell where the government insists on the secrecy of discovery ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's prosecution, which she argues was barred by a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). | District Court | View |
| N/A | Visit | Mr. Epstein would visit the Palm Beach house, sometimes without Ms. Maxwell and sometimes bringin... | Palm Beach house | View |
| N/A | Alleged criminal act | Transportation of an individual (Jane) across state lines for the purpose of illegal sexual activ... | across state lines | View |
| N/A | Grand jury investigation | The government conducted a grand jury investigation and issued subpoenas without notifying Ms. Ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Flight | A flight for Jane to return to Palm Beach, allegedly arranged by Ms. Maxwell. | From New York to Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Trip | The witness was instructed by either Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell to pick up Virginia Roberts. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Visit | Virginia brought her boyfriend to Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home. Ms. Maxwell told the witness... | Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home | View |
| N/A | Visit | Towards the end of the witness's stay, Virginia brought two other unidentified girls to Mr. Epste... | Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001709.jpg
This document is a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing that the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement at the MDC violate her Sixth Amendment rights by severely restricting her ability to review discovery materials. The defense contends that the BOP's proposed three-hour daily window for reviewing documents is insufficient given the volume of evidence and conflicts with necessary time for hygiene and exercise.
DOJ-OGR-00001706.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on August 10, 2020, concerning the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has delayed discovery production and failed to identify "Victims 1-3," which hinders the defense's ability to investigate allegations dating back 25 years involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text details the timeline of procedural events, protective orders, and discovery deadlines.
DOJ-OGR-00001688.jpg
This legal document is page 4 of a filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense team to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 29, 2020. The defense argues that the government's proposed protective order would improperly restrict their ability to investigate and prepare for trial by limiting contact with witnesses, including accusers who have already publicly identified themselves. The defense also refutes the government's interpretation of their own proposed order, clarifying its intended scope and purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00001687.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated July 29, 2020, presents the defense's argument against a government-proposed protective order in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends the order would impede their ability to investigate alleged victims and witnesses, citing legal precedents where individuals waived their privacy rights by making information public. The document asserts the need for a full investigation to challenge the credibility of accusers and mount an effective defense for their client, who is presumed innocent.
DOJ-OGR-00001646.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal letter dated July 27, 2020, from attorneys Christian R. Everdell and Mark S. Cohen of COHEN & GRESSER LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter concludes a submission requesting that the Court enter a proposed protective order on behalf of their client, Ms. Maxwell. The document is part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
DOJ-OGR-00001644.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2020, is a filing in the criminal case of Ms. Maxwell, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It discusses the legal standard for a protective order over discovery materials, arguing that restrictions should apply not only to the defense but also to the government's potential witnesses and their counsel. The filing expresses concern that these witnesses, who are also involved in civil litigation against Ms. Maxwell, might use the discovery materials to support their civil cases or in public statements.
DOJ-OGR-00001643.jpg
This is a letter dated July 27, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys at Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York. The attorneys request the court to enter a protective order for discovery materials in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter highlights that while most terms have been agreed upon with the government, two key disputes remain: whether government witnesses should face the same restrictions as the defense regarding discovery materials, and whether the defense should be allowed to identify alleged victims or witnesses who are already public.
DOJ-OGR-00001639.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, discusses the case of Ms. Maxwell, focusing on the aftermath of her July 14 detention hearing. It details comments made by David Boies, counsel for an accuser named Farmer, who heavily criticizes Maxwell's 'blame the victim' defense strategy as a 'dangerous tactic'. Boies recounts Farmer's testimony and another story about a 16-year-old named Annie being fraudulently lured by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to a ranch in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00001638.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, is page 4 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues that public statements made by FBI Special Agent William Sweeney and attorneys for witnesses (David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Bradley Edwards) are prejudicial against Ghislaine Maxwell and violate local court rules. The document quotes these individuals characterizing Maxwell as a villain, speculating on her cooperation, and defining her role as the primary facilitator for Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00001637.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that recent public statements by the government have been prejudicial to her right to a fair trial. It specifically cites a press conference held by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss on July 2, 2020, following Maxwell's arrest, quoting her statements from the New York Law Journal and the Washington Post as evidence of improper commentary on Maxwell's credibility and guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 10, 2020, is a memorandum arguing against the detention of Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that she has rebutted the presumption of being a flight risk and that the government's argument, based on the potential for a long sentence, oversimplifies the legal standard. The document cites several legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support its position while distinguishing Ms. Maxwell's case from those cited by the prosecution (Alindato-Perez).
DOJ-OGR-00001601.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing arguing for bail for Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly mitigates her flight risk, citing a recent ruling in another case (U.S. v. El Mokadem) where a defendant was released for this reason. The filing also distinguishes Maxwell's case from Epstein's, arguing the government does not allege she poses a current danger to the community, and that her alleged offenses ended in 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00001597.jpg
This legal document argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is not a flight risk and should be granted release. It asserts that despite the government's claim of her 'frequent international travel', she has not left the United States since Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and subsequent death in August 2019. The document highlights that she remained in the country and maintained contact with prosecutors even as media scrutiny and the risk of her own prosecution intensified, actions which it claims weigh heavily in favor of her release.
DOJ-OGR-00001594.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the legal standards for pre-trial detention concerning the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It details the government's dual burden to prove she is a flight risk and that no conditions can ensure her appearance in court. The document also discusses the Bail Reform Act's rebuttable presumption against release and how the defense can counter it, noting that unlike in the Epstein case, the government is not arguing that Ms. Maxwell is a danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00001593.jpg
This page is from a legal memorandum filed on July 10, 2020, arguing for the pretrial release of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense contends that the government has failed to prove she is a flight risk or that no conditions exist to assure her appearance, citing the Bail Reform Act and Supreme Court precedent (Salerno) establishing liberty as the norm and detention as an exception. A footnote references a separate letter regarding poor prison conditions, including lack of visitation and legal access, which the defense argues are 'compelling reasons' for release.
DOJ-OGR-00001591.jpg
This legal document argues for the release of Ms. Maxwell from detention, citing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on her ability to prepare her defense. The filing references the 'Stephens' case as a precedent, emphasizing that the BOP's suspension of in-person visits prevents Ms. Maxwell from having the necessary meetings with her counsel for a case involving events from twenty-five years ago.
DOJ-OGR-00001590.jpg
This is page 10 of a legal filing from July 10, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues for release or specific detention conditions based on the high risk of COVID-19 in prisons, citing statistics and prior court rulings. It specifically notes that Maxwell was transferred to the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) by the BOP on July 6, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001582.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 18 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 10, 2020. The filing argues for the release of Ms. Maxwell, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and challenging the government's assertion that she is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001431.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court regarding the confinement conditions of her client, Ms. Maxwell, at the MDC. Sternheim requests the Court to order the MDC to stop the disruptive 15-minute flashlight surveillance of Ms. Maxwell and argues that the threat of placing her in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) is ironic and unwarranted, as her only contact is with staff.
DOJ-OGR-00001417.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell is being subjected to abusive and inhumane conditions by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The filing claims this treatment is retribution for Jeffrey Epstein's death while in BOP custody. To support the claim of agency incompetence, it quotes District Judge Colleen McMahon from a separate case criticizing the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons.
DOJ-OGR-00001416.jpg
This legal document excerpt details the defense's arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding her treatment at MDC Brooklyn. The defense claims the government and court are unfairly handling evidence, specifically a videotape of an incident that would allegedly disprove statements made by MDC staff. The document also highlights the defense's frustration with the court's dismissal of their complaints about jail conditions, such as guards flashing a light in Ms. Maxwell's cell every 15 minutes.
DOJ-OGR-00001413.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the government misrepresented the nature of its treatment of inmate Ms. Maxwell. The filing claims the government initially told the court that flashlight checks every 15 minutes were a routine procedure by the Bureau of Prisons, but later admitted in a letter that these checks were targeted only at Ms. Maxwell. The document asserts this special treatment is unjustified and an attempt by the government to mislead the court.
DOJ-OGR-00001410.jpg
This legal document, dated May 17, 2021, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, a pre-trial detainee. It argues that the horrific conditions of her confinement—including sleep deprivation, contaminated water, surveillance of legal meetings, and overflowing sewage—make it impossible for her to prepare for trial. The filing renews a motion for bond and relief, referencing a prior district court order that admonished the Bureau of Prisons and the MDC to apply only necessary and standard security protocols.
DOJ-OGR-00001402.jpg
This legal document is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court, filed on February 7, 2021, concerning her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim argues that the Court's request for public updates on Maxwell's confinement is harmful, fueling negative media attention and jeopardizing her right to a fair trial. The letter criticizes the government's actions and requests that any future updates on Maxwell's condition be filed under seal to protect her privacy and legal rights.
DOJ-OGR-00001395.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 19, 2021, by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues for a continuance (delay) of the trial for their client, Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the government's proposed trial schedule is unrealistic, especially given a recent second superseding indictment, and that proceeding would violate Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights. The filing also notes the prejudicial impact of Ms. Maxwell's continued detention and ongoing media coverage, and mentions an upcoming bail appeal hearing in the Second Circuit.
| 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 |
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 matters
The document alleges that all of Ms. Maxwell's legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system.
Denial of request
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
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.
Denial of stay
Judge Preska denied Ms. Maxwell's request for a stay, stating there was no factual basis.
Request for permission to share information
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Legal Emails
Legal emails prematurely deleted by MDC in violation of policy.
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
Upcoming flight on one of Mr. Epstein's planes
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness via beeper to provide information about an upcoming flight.
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.
Video conference
Session reduced by 90 minutes; severe audio/video technical issues impacting confidentiality and visibility.
Upcoming flight information
Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness (Rodgers) via beeper to convey information about upcoming flights on Mr. Epstein's planes.
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.
Discovery Disc
Federal Express envelope containing an unreadable discovery disc, delayed by two weeks.
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.
In-person legal conference
Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.
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.
Needing something
Early on, Ms. Maxwell would contact the witness by beeper if she needed something.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity