Alleged Victims
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
Unnamed law firm
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Law Firm (Unnamed)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecutors in Florida
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
UN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Wendy Olson
|
Coordinator |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Pickpocketing incident where a defendant fled with a wallet containing $14. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Document dump release | Global | View |
| N/A | N/A | Settlement reached in civil lawsuit to avoid testimony. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Upcoming pre-trial proceedings and trial for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Ma... | courthouse | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The document outlines rules for seating and conduct at future court proceedings, including limiti... | Courthouse | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged sexual assault involving DSK and a victim. | Bedroom/Shower area | View |
| N/A | Litigation | Extensive litigation occurred before Judge Marra regarding the failure of prosecutors to notify v... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2021-11-15 | Meeting | An in-person court proceeding is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m. | Courtroom 518, Thurgood Mar... | View |
| 2021-11-05 | N/A | Proposed dates for Rule 412 and Daubert hearings | Court | View |
| 2021-11-01 | Meeting | An in-person pretrial conference was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. | Courtroom 518, 40 Centre St... | View |
| 2021-11-01 | Pretrial conference | An in-person pretrial conference for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom 518, Thurgood Mar... | View |
| 2021-10-21 | N/A | Telephone conference to discuss jury selection matters and logistics. | Telephone (Dial-in provided) | View |
| 2021-10-21 | N/A | Telephone conference to discuss jury selection matters | Telephone Conference (Publi... | View |
| 2021-10-14 | Court order | Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an ORDER regarding victim attendance at trial, ensuring public acce... | SDNY | View |
| 2020-07-14 | Court hearing | Scheduled arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing to be held remotely. | Remote video/teleconference | View |
| 2020-07-14 | N/A | Arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing | Remote video/teleconference | View |
| 2019-08-27 | Court hearing | A hearing in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein where 11 alleged victims spoke or submi... | N/A | View |
| 2019-06-15 | N/A | Civil lawsuit settlement reported by Fox News. | N/A | View |
| 2008-05-19 | N/A | State discovery provisions revealed women on the 'victim list' testified they suffered no harm. | Unknown | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Civil court testimony regarding hundreds of girls brought to Epstein's homes | Civil Court | View |
| 2007-09-20 | N/A | Palm Beach Police conducted an investigation, taking statements from 17 witnesses and five allege... | Palm Beach, Florida | View |
EFTA00027654.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated November 8, 2021. Judge Alison J. Nathan schedules a conference for November 10, 2021, to address defense motions concerning Federal Rules of Evidence 412 (sexual behavior evidence) and 702 (expert testimony). The order explicitly mandates the parties to confirm by November 9 that alleged victims have been notified of the upcoming hearing and their right to attend.
EFTA00027649.pdf
Court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on November 8, 2021, in the case of US v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order schedules a conference for November 10 to address evidentiary motions (Rule 412 and Rule 702) and mandates that parties confirm by November 9 that alleged victims referenced in the Rule 412 motion have been notified of the hearing and their right to attend.
DOJ-OGR-00001542.jpg
A court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 7, 2020. The document addresses victim notification regarding detention hearings and excludes specific time periods from the Speedy Trial Act due to delays in transferring the defendant and logistical issues with remote proceedings. It also references the need for a protective order regarding discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00001027.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) involving a detention hearing. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that the female defendant (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell) should be denied bail because she poses an extreme flight risk, has significant undisclosed financial means, strong international ties, and is charged with the sexual abuse of minors. Defense attorney Mr. Cohen is present, and the judge indicates that alleged victims will also be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00000421.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript filed on July 16, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A defense attorney argues that the current indictment is an illegitimate 'do-over' of a previous investigation conducted in Florida regarding allegations from 2002-2005, which had been resolved via a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The speaker contends that revisiting these facts undermines the integrity of plea deals with the United States and begins to argue the definition of sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00000393.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (USA v. Epstein) filed on July 16, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten argues that discovery is needed to determine if Florida prosecutors violated the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by steering victims to New York. Prosecutor Mr. Rossmiller responds that the conduct is within the statute of limitations and denies allegations of a conspiracy within the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00002011.jpg
This document is page 39 of a defense filing (Document 97) dated December 14, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government only pursued Maxwell as an 'afterthought' following Jeffrey Epstein's death in custody, noting that subpoenas for her financial records were not issued until August 16, 2019 (six days after his death). The text contends there is a lack of documentary corroboration for the charges, characterizing the case as relying on 25-year-old witness testimony, and urges the court to grant bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001953.jpg
This document is page 76 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell case) filed on December 10, 2020. The Court questions Ms. Moe (Government) about whether statements made by alleged victims should be considered in the '3142 analysis' (bail determination). Ms. Moe clarifies that while victims have a right to speak under the Crime Victims Rights Act, the government is not using their testimony to support its specific motion, leading the Court to conclude it should not consider the substance of those statements for the bail analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00001885.jpg
This page is a transcript from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 10, 2020. The Court is establishing logistical protocols for a hearing on pretrial detention, citing COVID-19 as a reason for specific remote access arrangements. The Judge details provisions for video feeds for the press and audio lines for the public (1,000 callers), alleged victims, and the defendant's family.
DOJ-OGR-00010599.jpg
This is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 672) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 24, 2022. The defense argues that the upcoming sentencing proceeding should not be an 'open-mike forum' and contends that individuals who do not strictly qualify as 'crime victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should be barred from giving oral testimony or having their statements read. The filing asserts that allowing non-statutory victims to speak would trample Maxwell's rights and suggests some individuals may be motivated by financial reward or media attention.
DOJ-OGR-00004741.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on June 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's request (Request 11) for a subpoena to obtain original photographs of an alleged victim, ruling that the Government has already agreed to provide the photos in FBI possession, and that Maxwell failed to establish the relevance of the remaining photos beyond impeachment purposes, which does not satisfy Rule 17(c) requirements. The document concludes by formally denying the Defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00005389.jpg
This document is a letter dated October 27, 2021, from defense attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter informs the court that the defense is filing a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (regarding sexual behavior evidence) under seal. It also outlines the defense's plan to serve redacted copies of this motion to the counsel of the specific alleged victims whose behavior is discussed in the motion.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017335.jpg
This document appears to be a draft of a legal argument or an internal memo regarding the sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK). It outlines the prosecution's narrative versus the defense's claim of consensual sex, arguing that the defense's theory is implausible given the physical evidence (DNA on undergarments) and the physical description of the defendant. The document carries a House Oversight stamp, suggesting it was part of a larger document production.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Alleged Victims | $0.00 | Reference to a 'last-minute settlement' in a ci... | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Alleged Victims | $0.00 | Reference to a 'last-minute settlement' in a ci... | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Alleged Victims | $200.00 | Payment range ($200-$300) for massage visits me... | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Alleged Victims | $300.00 | Payment range ($200-$300) for massage visits me... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Alleged Victims | defendant | $14.00 | Contents of a wallet involved in a pickpocketin... | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Alleged Victims | $0.00 | Request for records regarding 'payments' allege... | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Alleged Victims | $0.00 | Defense attorney Weingarten states 'Mr. Epstein... | View |
Implication of Ms. Maxwell
An alleged victim's statement to the FBI, which previously did not implicate Ms. Maxwell, is contrasted with a current statement that does.
Status of Justice
Stating justice was not served by the indictment and the matter was referred to the FBI.
No Subject
Phone messages were part of the evidence collected by police.
Racketeering
A complaint alleged that Epstein, Maxwell, Brunel, Rodriguez, and Marcinkova engaged in a pattern of racketeering involving luring minor children for money.
Racketeering
A complaint alleged that Epstein, Maxwell, Brunel, Rodriguez, and Marcinkova engaged in a pattern of racketeering involving luring minor children for money.
Financial interest in suing
Recorded conversation suggesting she may have had a financial interest in suing DSK.
Personal activities
The girls had written on myspace.com about smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol.
Personal activities
The girls had written on myspace.com about smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity