the defendant
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
17
Very Strong
|
24 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
65 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
13
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Business associate |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror defendant |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MDC staff
|
Custodial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Abuser victim |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirator alleged |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Financial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Abuser victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
location
France
|
Citizenship |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Minor Victims-1 through -4 | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Illegal sexual abuse | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Payment of criminal monetary penalties within 30 (or 60) days after release from imprisonment, ba... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jane's testimony regarding sexual abuse | New Mexico (abuse location) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual Abuse | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant living in isolation and hiding assets | Unknown hiding location | View |
| N/A | N/A | Period during which the defendant and Epstein committed crimes together. | Epstein's properties | View |
| N/A | N/A | Attendance at Arts Camp | Arts Camp | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flights on private planes with minors | Epstein's private planes | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search of the New York Residence. | New York Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Limited Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial completion | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flight to New Mexico | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | N/A | Post-trial allegation of juror bias | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant's evasion of detection leading up to arrest. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massages taking place in Epstein's bedroom. | Epstein's Bedroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant's Quarantine | MDC | View |
| N/A | N/A | Motion for a New Trial | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Grooming and sex acts involving Minor Victim-3 | London | View |
| N/A | N/A | Evasion of detection/press | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition where alleged perjury occurred. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Legal Ruling | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Arrest of Defendant | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Anticipated trial where evidence regarding victims and terms like 'rape' will be used. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing ruling where the judge determines Virginia Roberts and Melissa are victims for... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00011695.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court transcript (Opening Statement by Ms. Pomerantz) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecutor describes Maxwell as Epstein's 'second in command' and 'lady of the house,' detailing how she managed staff to create a 'culture of silence' and utilized a specific 'playbook' to groom and abuse teenage girls, specifically targeting vulnerable daughters of single mothers with promises of financial aid and schooling.
DOJ-OGR-00011686.jpg
This document is page 21 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains instructions from the Judge to the jury regarding their conduct, specifically forbidding them from discussing the case with one another or outside parties until deliberations begin. The text explicitly lists various communication technologies and social media platforms (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.) that jurors are prohibited from using to discuss the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011682.jpg
This document is page 21 (transcript page 17) of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text contains preliminary instructions from the judge to the jury regarding the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof resting solely on the government, and the defendant's right not to present evidence (specifically using female pronouns 'she' and 'her'). The judge also outlines their own role in deciding rules of law compared to the jury's role as fact-finders.
DOJ-OGR-00011650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. The discussion centers on a legal point about whether a defendant can be convicted based 'solely' on the testimony of 'witness 3' concerning sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein. The judge seeks to clarify the precise legal standard and the government's stance on the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00011568.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a judge determines a defendant's sentence based on the 2003 Guidelines. The judge calculates a total offense level of 37, leading to a guideline imprisonment range of 210-262 months and a fine range of $20,000 to $200,000 per count. An attorney, Ms. Moe, then interjects to correct the judge's calculation, stating that 5 units should add 4 levels, not 5.
DOJ-OGR-00011559.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on July 22, 2022, related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (the defendant). The judge overrules a defense objection regarding sentencing enhancements, affirming that the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with a minor and rejecting the argument that a finding of 'continuing danger to the public' is required by the Guidelines. The judge cites legal precedents (United States v. Sash, NLRB v. SW General) to prioritize the clear text of the Guidelines over background commentary or legislative history.
DOJ-OGR-00011558.jpg
This document is page 39 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The judge is ruling on which sentencing guidelines apply (2003 vs 2004) based on the timeline of evidence involving 'Epstein's house' and a victim named Carolyn. The judge determines that message pads evidence (including exhibit GX-4B) does not sufficiently prove the offense continued after November 1, 2004, leading to the application of the 2003 guidelines and a discussion of the 4B1.5(b) enhancement for a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00011547.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell sentencing) dated July 22, 2022. The defense argues that money transfers for a helicopter and Larry Visoski holding car assets for Epstein do not prove the defendant's continued involvement in the conspiracy. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the financial evidence was offered to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against a sentencing enhancement, disputing the reliability of a 'message pad' and arguing that the conspiracy effectively ended in 2004, meaning 2003 guidelines should apply. The defense also contests a government claim that the defendant received $7 million into the 2007 time period.
DOJ-OGR-00011535.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. The judge is ruling on defense objections to the Presentence Investigation Report. The court overrules objections regarding findings that records from the 2005 Palm Beach search prove Epstein received sexualized massages from minors (2001-2004) and affirms the defendant's responsibility for victimizing additional minors. It also addresses the inclusion of a victim impact statement from a survivor named 'Kate'.
DOJ-OGR-00011532.jpg
This legal document is a transcript of a judge's ruling from a case filed on July 22, 2022. The judge overrules several objections from the defendant concerning the testimony of a witness named Carolyn, whom the judge finds credible. The testimony in question involves Carolyn's claims of being brought to Epstein's Palm Beach residence by Virginia at age 14, visiting over 100 times, and stopping the performance of 'sexualized massages' in 2001.
DOJ-OGR-00011530.jpg
This page from a court transcript details a judge's rulings on objections to a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) in a criminal case. The judge overrules an objection regarding conduct involving an individual named Kate, deeming it relevant for sentencing, but agrees to modify paragraph 43 to reflect that Kate was above the age of consent. The transcript ends with the introduction of an objection regarding evidence of payment for an individual named Annie's trip to Thailand.
DOJ-OGR-00011529.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022. In it, the judge makes findings of fact, stating it is probable the defendant paid Carolyn and Virginia for bringing and recruiting other girls. The judge then overrules two objections: one regarding the inclusion of a person named Kate, and another concerning the characterization of the defendant having groomed a person named Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00005752.jpg
This is page 6 of 10 from a defense motion filed on October 29, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The document argues that specific witnesses (whose names are redacted) should be precluded from offering 'overview' testimony or expert opinions because the government failed to provide the required pretrial disclosures under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(1)(G). The text cites *United States v. Brooks* to argue that overview testimony by government agents can improperly influence the jury by introducing credibility assessments or hearsay not in evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002749.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated March 9, 2021, arguing that the District Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) Third Bail Motion because an appeal regarding her Second Bail Motion is already pending with the Second Circuit. The text details the defendant's offers to renounce French and British citizenship and sequester spousal assets to secure bail, reiterating the court's previous finding that she poses a significant flight risk.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017145.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a memoir or legal manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz, given the context of clerking for Judge Bazelon). It discusses a specific legal case (Miller v. US, 1963) involving a wallet theft of $14, focusing on the legal theory concerning 'flight' (fleeing the scene) as evidence of guilt. The author contrasts traditional legal views (Wigmore) with psychoanalytic perspectives (Freud) to argue that fleeing can be a neurotic reaction rather than proof of a crime. The page bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-30 | Paid | the defendant | Court/Government | $8,000,000.00 | Property value proposed to secure bail. | View |
| 2020-12-30 | Paid | the defendant | Court/Government | $500,000.00 | Cash proposed to secure bail. | View |
| 2020-12-18 | Paid | the defendant | Pretrial Services | $3,800,000.00 | Assets reported by the defendant to Pretrial Se... | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Paid | the defendant | Self (Assets held) | $3,400,000.00 | Approximate worth of assets held in her own nam... | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Paid | the defendant | Security Guard | $0.00 | Provision of a credit card in the name of the L... | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Paid | the defendant | Trust Account | $4,000,000.00 | Balance of more than $4 million in the Swiss Ba... | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | N/A | the defendant | $55,931,000.00 | Valuation of NY property. | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | N/A | the defendant | $12,380,209.00 | Valuation of Florida property. | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | N/A | the defendant | $17,246,208.00 | Valuation of New Mexico property. | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | N/A | the defendant | $194,986,301.00 | Valuation of hedge funds and private equity. | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | N/A | the defendant | $14,304,679.00 | Asset valuation (likely cash or fixed income, c... | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | N/A | the defendant | $112,679,138.00 | Valuation of equities. | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | N/A | the defendant | $22,498,600.00 | Valuation of Great St. James Island property. | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | N/A | the defendant | $8,672,823.00 | Valuation of Paris property. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Paid | the defendant | Trust Account | $500,000.00 | Transfer from personal Swiss Bank account to Tr... | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Paid | the defendant | Trust Account | $750,000.00 | Transfer between personal Swiss Bank account an... | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Paid | the defendant | Self | $2,000,000.00 | Maximum values totaling well over $2 million in... | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Received | Unknown | the defendant | $14,000,000.00 | Deposit into account where defendant was listed... | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Received | Unknown (implied ... | the defendant | $7,000,000.00 | Government argument referenced by defense that ... | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Paid | the defendant | CAROLYN | $0.00 | Direct payment after massages on one or two occ... | View |
Request for redactions
Arguments for redactions based on undisclosed issues, credibility, and due process.
Schedule massage appointments
Scheduling appointments that served as cover for abuse.
Instruction regarding Carolyn
Instructed Virginia to show Carolyn 'what to do'.
Legal Defense
5 hours daily / 25 hours weekly of privileged attorney-client communication.
General/Legal
Access to phone in day room.
Legal consultation
In-person visits available 7 days a week but declined by counsel
Legal consultation
VTC calls and supplemental phone calls
Legal consultation
Defendant is able to send and receive emails every day
Third motion for bail
Defendant argues new conditions warrant reconsideration of earlier rulings and that the Government's case is diminished.
Little Black Book
Contact book containing Melissa's name and noting she is a friend of Carolyn's.
Maxwell Br. at 53
Argument that disclosure will color Juror 50's testimony.
Boarding assistance
Defendant 'made it happen' for Jane to get on a flight without proper identification.
Threat to safety
The defendant sent an email from within the MDC to the IG, claiming to be in fear for her safety and that MDC staff members were threatening her.
Threat to safety
The defendant sent an email from within the MDC to the IG, claiming to be in fear for her safety and that MDC staff members were threatening her.
Reply Brief
Devotes a single sentence to claim of pre-indictment delay.
Request to stay ruling
Request to stay ruling pending release of a documentary featuring Juror 50; request was denied.
Request to stay ruling
Request to stay ruling pending release of a documentary featuring Juror 50 (Denied).
Motion for a new trial
Defendant filed a motion for a new trial.
Juror's interviews
A letter from the Defendant informing the Court about the juror's interviews, filed shortly after the Government's letter.
Opposition to hearing request
A second letter from the Defendant on the same day, opposing the Government's request for a hearing.
Request for Reciprocal Discovery
Request for notice regarding any expert witness the defendant intends to rely upon.
Thirteen motions in limine
Defense filed motions to exclude certain evidence, which this document opposes.
Court-ordered disclosures
Hard drive sent via FedEx.
Intent to call expert witness
Notification of intent to call Dr. Rocchio in the case-in-chief.
Plea
The defendant confirms they have discussed the matter with their attorney, waives the public reading of the indictment, and pleads 'not guilty'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity