UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-against- S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------x
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
225 Broadway, Suite 715
New York, NY 10011
212-243-1100
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212-957-7600
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
950 17
th
Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80202
303-831-7364
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 1 of 77
1
On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this memorandum in
connection with sentencing, which is scheduled for June 28, 2022. As set forth below, we request
that the Court grant Ms. Maxwell a significant variance below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range of 292 - 365 months and below the 240-month sentence recommended by the Probation
Department (“Probation”).
Ghislaine Maxwell stands before the Court because of her association with Jeffrey Epstein
decades ago in the 1990s and early 2000s. Never before that time and never again in the roughly
20-year period since the conduct underlying this case occurred has Ms. Maxwell ever been accused
of a crime, much less a scheme to sexually abuse minors. The witnesses at trial testified about Ms.
Maxwell’s facilitation of Epstein’s abuse, but Epstein was always the central figure: Epstein was
the mastermind, Epstein was the principal abuser, and Epstein orchestrated the crimes for his
personal gratification. Indeed, had Ghislaine Maxwell never had the profound misfortune of
meeting Jeffrey Epstein over 30 years ago, she would not be here.
Epstein avoided a significant sentence when he was first prosecuted in Florida for these
offenses and then evaded any further punishment by dying a month after his arrest and detention
in New York. But this Court cannot sentence Ms. Maxwell as if she were a proxy for Epstein
simply because Epstein is no longer here. Ms. Maxwell cannot and should not bear all the
punishment for which Epstein should have been held responsible. Ms. Maxwell has already
experienced hard time during detention under conditions far more onerous and punitive than any
experienced by a typical pretrial detainee, and she is preparing to spend significantly more time
behind bars. Her life has been ruined. Since Epstein’s death, her life has been threatened and death
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 2 of 77
2
threats continue while she is incarcerated.
1
It would be a travesty of justice for her to face a
sentence that would have been appropriate for Epstein.
In its Final Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), Probation recommended a sentence
of 240 months’ imprisonment, a slight downward variance from the sentence recommended by
the advisory Guidelines. We have submitted objections directly to Probation which are amplified
in an accompanying submission.
2
We respectfully submit that in light of the circumstances
discussed below, including extraordinary punitive conditions of solitary confinement and the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, a sentence below the 240 months recommended by Probation
would be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to achieve the objectives of sentencing
articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The Context of the Case
This is not the first time the events in this case were investigated and resolved. This case
is a revival of a prosecution commenced in the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”) against
Epstein, which resulted in a state court conviction pursuant to a non-prosecution agreement. The
plea and sentence were negotiated without notice to Epstein’s victims. The “sweetheart” deal
created an uproar among his victims and the public, which was fueled by and featured in on-going
coverage in The Miami Herald. The public outcry led to removal of Alexander Acosta from his
cabinet post as Secretary of Labor for his role as U.S. Attorney for SDFL overseeing the Epstein
1
Most recently, an inmate in Ms. Maxwell’s unit threatened to kill her, claiming that an additional 20 years’
incarceration would be worth the money she’d receive for murdering Ms. Maxwell. See PSR ¶18.
2
See PSR at 46-63 and the accompanying “Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her
Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report,” filed separately.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 3 of 77
3
prosecution and to an investigation by the Justice Department's (“DOJ”) Office of Professional
Responsibility.
At the urging of civil attorneys representing Epstein’s victims, the U.S. Attorney’s Office
for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) took the extraordinary step of resurrecting the
decade-old case against Epstein. SDNY’s focus was always on righting the wrongs resulting from
the Florida prosecution: Epstein was undercharged and under punished, Epstein never faced his
accusers, and his accusers were denied justice. Epstein was the target and the focus of the
prosecution until his death in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) in August 2019.
Epstein’s 2019 Arrest and Aftermath
On July 6, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in connection with an SDNY indictment. He
was detained in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (“MCC”) until his untimely death in custody
on August 19, 2019. The highly publicized announcement of his arrest and detention came as a
relief and vindication for women who had filed complaints against him. His capture and
confinement quelled public outrage at Epstein’s lenient Florida plea deal from October 2007 and
the low sentence he received. Epstein’s death approximately one month after his arrest eliminated
any prospect of a trial, again shocking and disappointing his accusers. It also highlighted the failure
of the U.S. government to ensure that an inmate in federal custody, in such a sensitive and high-
profile case, could be kept safe and alive to face trial.
In the face of strong media and public uproar following Epstein’s death, the government
faced an urgency to appease the renewed distress of Epstein’s accusers and to repair the tarnished
reputations of the DOJ and BOP in whose custody Epstein died. There would be no trial for
Epstein and no public vindication and justice for his accusers. The government now had a huge
hole to fill: Epstein’s empty chair. Although four women had been specifically named as co-
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 4 of 77
4
conspirators or accomplices of Epstein in connection with his controversial Florida plea deal, and
although three of those same women were anonymously referenced in the 2019 SDNY indictment
charging Epstein, the government chose not to prosecute any of them. Instead, the spotlight turned
to Ghislaine Maxwell, with whom Epstein had had a relationship that was long since over and who
was not named in the Florida “sweetheart” deal.
Ms. Maxwell did not appear in the 2019 SDNY indictment against Epstein, nor was she
the subject of the 2007 SDFL grand jury presentation. Nevertheless, the government pivoted to
Ms. Maxwell, who up to that point had never been the focus of any criminal prosecution for these
events, and spent the next year investigating her. In doing so, SDNY had to reach back to events
that were over 20 years old, a decade before the conduct that was the subject of the SDFL
prosecution and the 2019 Epstein indictment. Almost a year to the day after Epstein’s arrest,
SDNY’s Acting U.S. Attorney put the timing of Ms. Maxwell’s prosecution and the extreme age
of the charges against her in context:
We were working hard on this investigation this past year. It’s not easy to put
together a case that goes back that far, but it was nothing other than we did the
investigation and we were ready at this time to proceed.
3
The entire focus of the accusations initially aimed at Epstein were now centered on one
defendant alone – Ghislaine Maxwell – at a time when she was already being vilified in the press
and the public domain. The media coverage was relentless and voluminous: dozens of broadcast
documentaries, tens of streamed videos and podcasts, and publication of some 50 books and
thousands of superficially written articles. The tsunami of one-sided, overwhelmingly negative
coverage about Ms. Maxwell that followed the arrest and death of Epstein presented Ms. Maxwell
as a caricature of evil, a depiction that has inevitably shaped the public’s opinion of her. And the
3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7J4ReLHvqg, at 8:06 -8:23 (emphasis added)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 5 of 77
5
government added to the demonization of Ms. Maxwell by calling her a “villain” on the day of her
arrest.
4
But in sentencing Ms. Maxwell, the Court cannot be influenced by this inexorable
drumbeat of public condemnation calling for her to be locked away for good. The Court cannot
heal the wounds caused by Epstein by heaping on Ms. Maxwell’s shoulders the pain of every one
of his victims, the outrage of society, the public scorn of the community, and then driving her out
of the community forever. While that may assuage the public and give the perception that “justice
was done,” that is not justice. That is scapegoating. Ms. Maxwell must be sentenced on the record
before the Court and not these external pressures.
Ghislaine Maxwell’s Arrest and Detention
At dawn on July 2, 2020, a team of more than a dozen FBI agents arrested Ms. Maxwell at
the New Hampshire home where she had taken refuge after Epstein’s death to escape the upsurge
of highly intrusive media coverage that had engulfed her and her family. She had relocated alone,
separating from her family to safeguard her husband and two young stepchildren and to secure the
personal safety of her family and herself. At that time, Ms. Maxwell was the target of numerous
death threats and threats of violence and was being hunted by the press. One media outlet even
offered a $10,000 bounty for information about her whereabouts. Tragically, this experience was
not new for Ms. Maxwell. Decades earlier, when Ms. Maxwell was just a child and her father was
a Member of Parliament, U.K. authorities found a “hit list” of potential kidnapping/assassination
targets in a safehouse used by the Irish Republican Army. Ms. Maxwell’s name was first on the
list. This unnerving experience has haunted her, heightening her vigilance and concerns about the
welfare and safety of her young stepchildren, who were being hounded by the media at school and
4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7J4ReLHvqg, at 2:09-2:15.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 6 of 77
6
at the beach; and her husband, who was besieged by media coverage and had lost his employment
and professional relationships. Ms. Maxwell was also worried for herself, having legitimate reason
to fear for her own life.
Despite having the benefits of foreign citizenship, Ms. Maxwell, a naturalized American
citizen, remained in the United States consistently after Epstein’s death, never evading the
authorities. At the time of her arrest, Ms. Maxwell was not considering flight – even though, given
her French and British nationalities, she could have taken refuge in these and other countries at
any time. Law enforcement had been discreetly keeping tabs on her throughout the course of its
investigation.
5
Her lawyers had been in contact with prosecutors in the months preceding her
arrest and would have arranged for her self-surrender. Ms. Maxwell’s presence in New Hampshire
was driven solely by the need to protect herself and her family from threats of physical harm and
from the unprecedented and escalating press and public vilification she had to endure since
Epstein’s death.
On July 6, 2020, exactly a year to the day after Epstein’s arrest, Ms. Maxwell was ordered
detained in the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) based on the government’s assertion that
she posed “an extreme risk of flight” and that “no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required.”
6
Each of four bail applications
were denied on the elusive claim of flight risk, despite the unprecedented financial collateral and
restrictions proposed to secure a hefty bond for an almost 60-year-old woman who, the government
conceded, posed no danger to the community, and who had never attempted to flee the United
States. For the next 22 months she was exposed to discriminatory and punitive solitary
5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7J4ReLHvqg, at 2:31- 2:39.
6
20 Cr. 330, Dkt. 4, at 2.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 7 of 77
7
confinement, isolated from all other inmates, and subjected to abnormally rigorous conditions. On
April 20, 2022, almost four months after trial, she was abruptly placed in general population, and
the charade of her pretrial detention was revealed: Her unusual detention was intended to help
redeem DOJ and BOP reputations tarnished by Epstein’s untimely death in custody and to ensure
that Epstein’s accusers would have their day in court. Ms. Maxwell’s pre-sentence detention was
tantamount to pre-sentence punishment.
Nor will Ms. Maxwell’s disproportionate pre-sentence punishment end now that she is in
general population. Just recently, Ms. Maxwell was the target of a credible death threat from a
fellow inmate. On information and belief, one of the female inmates in Ms. Maxwell’s housing
unit told at least three other inmates that she had been offered money to murder Ms. Maxwell and
that she planned to strangle her in her sleep. The inmate who made the threat has been moved to
the SHU, presumably to protect Ms. Maxwell.
7
This incident reflects the brutal reality that there
are numerous prison inmates who would not hesitate to kill Ms. Maxwell – whether for money,
fame, or simple “street cred.” Ms. Maxwell has effectively traded the stress of flashlight checks
every 15 minutes in the middle of the night while in isolation for the equivalent stress of having
to sleep with one eye open - for as long as she is housed with other inmates. Ms. Maxwell will
have live with this threat every day that she is housed in the MDC and every day that she is
incarcerated in the prison where she is designated.
The Offense Conduct
Having ruled on extensive pre- and post-trial motions and having presided over the jury
trial and the post-trial hearing regarding Juror 50, the Court is fully familiar with the record in
7
See PSR ¶18.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 8 of 77
8
this case.
8
The Presentence Investigation Report
On June 9, 2022, Probation filed its final PSR recommending a below-guidelines sentence
of 240 months’ imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised release. See PSR at 65.
Regarding a sentencing recommendation, Probation has identified several
mitigating factors. Maxwell is 61 years old, and a guidelines sentence may be
tantamount to a lifetime term of imprisonment. The defendant has a reported history
of philanthropy, charitable work, and helping others namely her work with the
Clinton Global Initiative, The TerraMar Project, her use of EMT skills to help
others, and her tutoring of inmates at the MDC. We further acknowledge that
Maxwell is not solely responsible for the horrendous and irreparable damage caused
by the decade.
PSR at 66-67.
Adjustment to Incarceration
Despite her extraordinarily restrictive conditions of detention, Ms. Maxwell has availed
herself of any programming or work opportunity available to her. While in solitary confinement,
she completed six courses, but until transferred to general population, she never had the
opportunity to make use of that training. Post-trial she was permitted to work as an orderly which
has continued in general population. Since placed in general population, she has eagerly provided
a wide variety of assistance to the women is her unit, including GED tutoring. See PSR. §16. In
addition, she has participated in and completed several educational courses. See PSR §15.
8
Ms. Maxwell is planning to appeal her conviction following sentencing. Accordingly, any discussion of
the trial evidence in this submission is not an admission by Ms. Maxwell as to its accuracy or veracity.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 9 of 77
9
GHISLAINE’S PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CHARACTERISTICS
9
Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell was born on December 25, 1961, in Maisons Laffitte,
France, the last child born to the marriage of Robert and Elisabeth Maxwell. She is youngest of
nine siblings. A sister died of childhood leukemia years before Ghislaine was born. Two days
following Ghislaine’s birth, her eldest sibling, Michael, was seriously and permanently injured in
a car accident. He remained in a coma on and then off life support for the next seven years.
Family Tragedy and Controversy
10
The tragedy caused by Michael’s accident and coma disrupted the equilibrium of the
Maxwell family and transformed young Ghislaine’s formative years. Ghislaine was hardly given
a glance and became anorexic while still a toddler. At age three, she stood in front of her mother
and said simply, “Mummy, I exist.” On doctor’s orders exactly a year after Michael’s accident,
her mother went on a long tour of India and Australia, leaving infant Ghislaine and her siblings
not already in boarding school at home in the care of a nanny.
With Robert Maxwell’s publishing company growing and his political career launched, the
Maxwell home was filled with prominent guests and ongoing entertaining. As the children grew,
they took part in the hosting of guests, having been instructed by their parents to be attentive to
the needs of the guests. Despite Mr. Maxwell’s professed love for his children, his relationship
with them began to change soon after he became a Member of Parliament. He stopped living at
home regularly, essentially seeing the children only on Sunday, leaving little normal daily contact
between father and child to counterbalance the peaks of crisis and drama he created in the family.
Even on those Sundays there was an inevitable contingent of authors and businesspeople in whose
9
The following discussion amplifies information contained in the PSR at ¶¶134–178.
10
This section is corroborated by the autobiography of Ghislaine’s mother, Elisabeth Maxwell: A Mind of
My Own (Harper Collins 1994).
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 10 of 77
10
presence the children would, so to speak, be put on trial, and the “Maxwellian Drama” would
begin.
The ordeal occurred every Sunday at lunchtime. The conversation would start normally,
until Mr. Maxwell selected one child to answer his questions on a particular topic in accordance
with the rules of life he has encapsulated into mnemonics and drilled into them, e.g., the 3Cs
(Concentration, Consideration and Conciseness) or WWWH (What? Why? When? and How?). If
the child stumbled, didn’t speak on point, or gave a wrong answer, Mr. Maxwell would demand
them to answer which of the principles they had forgotten to apply and the reason for that failure.
The dressing down was always painful in the extreme with everyone around the table feeling
uncomfortable. Mr. Maxwell, a man of large physical stature with a booming voice, would
explode, threaten, and rant at the children until they were reduced to pulp. Mr. Maxwell was
relentless, with children ending up in tears, punishments being doled out, and the whole family in
utter distress.
Mr. Maxwell employed corporal punishment on his children. Ghislaine vividly recalls a
time when, at age 13, she tacked a poster of a pony on the newly painted wall of her bedroom.
Rather than mar the paint with tape, she carefully hammered a thin tack to mount the poster. This
outraged her father, who took the hammer and banged on Ghislaine’s dominant hand, leaving it
severely bruised and painful for weeks to come.
Out of the Home and Off to Boarding School
Within a week after Ghislaine’s seventh birthday, Michael, then 23 years old, died, further
disrupting the family. By age eight, Ghislaine was sent off to boarding school, at a time when it
was uncommon for girls, let alone girls of primary school age, to be boarded. The school was hours
away from home, and she returned only during school holidays and at the end of the school year.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 11 of 77
11
Mr. Maxwell’s political career was ending, and he would face the loss of his publishing company,
a contentious takeover battle, and legal investigations that would blight the family for the next
seven years and permanently damage his reputation. The 1970s were difficult and demanding years
for the family, marred by Mr. Maxwell’s endless battle of lawsuits and financial ruin. Despite the
family chaos, Ghislaine thrived in boarding school, away from the whirlwind of emotional turmoil
caused by the relentless demands of her father, which continued until his death in 1991.
On Her Own
Robert Maxwell demanded much of his children and informed them that they needed to
keep industrious as they would not be receiving any inheritance. Hardworking, entrepreneurial,
and resourceful, Ghislaine excelled academically and occupationally. Between finishing her A
Levels at Marlborough College and attending Oxford University, she spent a year in Spain teaching
English, then selling books for her father’s publishing company in France. She began her first
romance, only to have the relationship quashed by her father’s disapproval of her engagement. A
family reconciliation coinciding with Ghislaine’s 20
th
birthday devolved into a miserable
Christmas. Mr. Maxwell was at his absolute worst, making Ghislaine the scapegoat du jour. The
holiday ended with an announcement that her parents were separating.
While attending Oxford, she started a booster club which made discount tickets to sporting
events available to students and participated in an organization which provided services to the
elderly. After receiving both bachelor and master’s degrees from Oxford University, Ghislaine
worked at a temp agency and started her own company - Maxwell’s Corporate Gifts. At her
father’s insistence, the business was merged into his business holdings. By 1991, Ghislaine had
relocated to New York to launch The European, an international magazine, as part of the Maxwell
publishing conglomerate. Within that year, Ghislaine’s father died under suspicious and
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 12 of 77
12
unresolved circumstances and under a cloud of business impropriety. With Mr. Maxwell deceased,
her brothers, Ian and Kevin, employees of their father, shouldered the accusations. All family
assets were frozen, Elisabeth Maxwell was left penniless, the brothers were tried and ultimately
acquitted, and Ghislaine was left to fend for herself.
11
Life After Epstein
In 2003, Ms. Maxwell began a seven-year romantic relationship with Theodore “Ted”
Waitt and developed a strong and loving bond with his four children, ranging in age from six to
twelve. Her relationship with Waitt was on track for marriage and gave her what she had always
hoped for and wanted most – the opportunity for a loving, stable family life and the chance to
become stepmother to Waitt’s children. But her hopes were destroyed, as was so much of her life,
by her previous association with Epstein. A Miami lawyer named Scott W. Rothstein, Esq.
attempted to blackmail Waitt to keep Ms. Maxwell’s name out of civil lawsuits related to Epstein
that his law firm was planning to file. Ms. Maxwell’s relationship with Waitt could not survive
the blackmail threats and it ended soon afterwards.
12
The same thing has now occurred again
several years later as a result of this prosecution. In 2013, Ms. Maxwell began a new relationship
with the man she would later marry. She was with her husband for over seven years and became
11
It was around this time that Ms. Maxwell met Jeffrey Epstein for the first time. As Ms. Maxwell plans
to appeal her conviction, we will not comment on the events during this time period that were the subject
of the trial.
12
Through his law firm, Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler (“RRA”), Rothstein perpetrated a massive $1.2 billion
dollar Ponzi scheme in Florida. Touting RRA as the “preeminent sexual harassment firm in the country,”
Rothstein claimed to be representing numerous underage girls who had been involved with Epstein. In the
spring of 2009, RRA recruited Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., who immediately joined the firm. By the end of
October 2009, Rothstein became a fugitive, and later returned to face arrest, to plead guilty to RICO charges
in SDFL, and to receive a 50-year sentence. See 09 Cr. 60331(JIC). Rothstein had targeted Waitt, the deep-
pocket co-founder of Gateway, Inc., because of his ongoing relationship with Ms. Maxwell, who had
previously been involved with Epstein. Rothstein demanded $10 million to keep Ms. Maxwell’s name out
of civil lawsuits. Waitt successfully resisted Rothstein’s blackmail attempt, but Ms. Maxwell was named
in lawsuits filed by RRA. Ultimately, Ms. Maxwell’s relationship with Waitt did not survive the ordeal.
See PSR at ¶¶151-152.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 13 of 77
13
a devoted stepmother to her husband’s two youngsters, who were ages three and four and a half at
the start of the relationship. Sadly, the marriage could not survive the negative impact of this case
nor a husband’s association with his dishonored wife.
Ms. Maxwell has always worked hard. Her many educational, occupational, and
avocational accomplishments include becoming an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), a
helicopter pilot, a submersible pilot, a banker; partnering with the Cleveland Clinic to establish a
telemedicine platform to enable people in remote areas to obtain quality medical treatment; helping
develop the Clinton Global Initiative; and supporting a variety non-profit and charitable
organizations. In 2012, at age 50, she turned a lifelong passion for the oceans into a non-profit
environmental organization, The TerraMar Project, with the mission of creating a "global ocean
community" based on the idea of shared ownership and responsibility of the global “commons”
(the high seas and international waters). She spoke on topics related to ocean conservation, giving
TED Talks, and delivering a speech at the United Nations. National Geographic and Oxford
University were among the organizations that collaborated in support of the project. The TerraMar
Project was closed after Epstein’s death to spare her partners from invasion of privacy by the press
due their association with her. See PSR ¶178.
Letters from Family and Friends
Accompanying letters from family and remaining friends (most having cut ties due
to fear of association and the lure of “cancel culture”) attest to Ghislaine’s character; each
offers a first-person narrative of some aspect of her life in sharp contrast to her characterization as
a villain, rich heiress, and vapid socialite. See Exhibits A -I.
Her eldest siblings, Anne Halve, a psychotherapist, and Philip Maxwell, recount the
impact of their father:
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 14 of 77
14
Her relationship with Epstein began at a moment of extreme vulnerability
Ghislaine's life after the tragic death of our father. He (our father) was a powerful
and dominant figure. And as elder siblings we witnessed our father taking Ghislaine
under his wing whereby she became over dependent on his approval and vulnerable
to his frequent rapid mood swings, huge rages and rejections. This led her to
becoming very vulnerable to abusive and powerful men who would be able to
take advantage of her innate
good nature.
It is striking that Ghislaine did not show any perverse behaviour
before she met
Epstein. Nor did she show any after leaving him,
which she eventually managed
to do.
The effect of our father's psychologically abusive treatment of her,
foreshadowed Epstein's own ability to exploit, manipulate and control her.
Exhibit A.
Another psychotherapist and family friend of some 55 years,
James Martin Hollomon,
recalls his observations of Ghislaine’s father:
[T]heir father was narcissistic, demanding and highly controlling. He let
them know early that he was going to leave his large fortune to charity. So,
all the
kids knew they had to "make it on their own" despite the wealth and
privilege in which they were
growing up.
As I got to know each of these kids,
including Ghislaine, I noticed that early on, every single one
worked very
hard at their jobs, as Bob wouldn't bear any idleness, and each strove for their
father's and mother's respect through their intelligence and their own hard work.
Exhibit B.
Her twin sisters, Christine Malina Maxwell and Isabel Maxwell, attest to Ghislaine’s
work ethic:
[W]e were privileged, but we were not entitled and life was not always perfect.
Unfortunately, our family also became a grieving family. Our eldest brother
Michael was gravely injured in a car accident just after Ghislaine was born; he
remained in a coma until his death when Ghislaine was seven years old. In spite
of this tragedy, I watched Ghislaine learn to adapt and to become a productive
and caring human being.
[B]oth of our parents had an incredible work ethic. We were all encouraged
from an early age to work to earn money and to
respect the responsibility
that came with that privilege. I have witnessed that work ethic in
Ghislaine.
Ghislaine had money because she worked very hard to earn it. Her positions
demanded hard, diligent work, great intelligence, great management skills,
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 15 of 77
15
great ability to get on well with people from all walks of life, artistic creativity,
and caring about others. Her work was a far cry from the ‘flippity-jibit
socialite’ label that the media has decided to cast on her every
time they
reference her.
Exhibit C.
[F]rom a very early age each of us had to learn and demonstrate what our father
termed “the 3 Cs: Consideration, Concentration and Conciseness” and to “always
treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.” We were quizzed on these
principles constantly and had to regularly report examples of how we followed
them. Ghislaine was no exception in deeply absorbing, exhibiting and living these
values. For example, I think it is no small feat to train and become a helicopter pilot,
an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), submersible pilot and more, as they all
require dedication, concentration and quick thinking and reactions and no small
amount of courage.
My sister was also very entrepreneurial in creating and investing in multiple
companies and organizations which created products and services, as well as
employment. An important example is that in 2012, Ghislaine turned a lifelong
passion for the oceans into a non-profit, The TerraMar Project, with the mission
to create a "global ocean community" based on the idea of shared ownership and
responsibility of the global “commons”—the high seas or international waters.
Exhibit D.
Her brothers, Ian and Kevin Maxwell, confirm the support Ghislaine has provided to
others:
My sister is Aunt to 13 nieces and nephews (now aged 18 to 37) and I have
witnessed at first hand over the years her generosity to them – be it paying their
school fees, mentoring them and they grew up or providing job opportunities for
them. She also has an enduring capacity for friendship, a warm heart, and the ability
to convert those feelings into action when required to help those less fortunate than
herself. She had discreetly supported some friends financially and others by
providing a roof over their heads when they were down on their luck, often for
weeks at a time.
Exhibit E.
Ghislaine is an intelligent, warm hearted, generous, kind, funny, thoughtful and
loving
person. She cares about others. Ghislaine's first reaction on hearing of a
problem is how to solve it or how to contribute to a solution. Her desire is always
to engage, to bring energy to
every problem and to help
.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 16 of 77
16
Exhibit F.
Catherine Vaughan-Edwards, a friend, former employee, and the mother of Ghislaine’s
godson, relates her experience as a mentee:
The person that I have known for 34 years, is not the same as the Ghislaine so
negatively portrayed by the press and mainstream media. My own experience
is that she is kind, caring and thoughtful and is always there to provide support
as a loyal and generous friend. She has been a mentor, encouraging and
helping me to develop my business and gives her time and advice freely.
Exhibit G.
And, finally, Harriet Jagger, a school mate from age 15, shares Ghislaine’s longing for a
family life:
The last time I saw Ghislaine was in her home in New York a few years ago. I
listened to her as she spoke of her wish to find the security and happiness within
a family unit, she was visibly upset that this, the simplest of things for so many
others had still not been a part of her own life. I felt truly sorry for her. Having
known her large and great family, her love and great respect for her parents and
closeness to her brothers and sisters, I knew this was something she had always
craved. I gave her a huge hug on departing. So I was then thrilled to learn that she
had finally met and married someone and was helping bring up his young
children, but them desperate to hear that this much sought-after joy was so short
lived.
Exhibit H.
A NON-GUIDELINES SENTENCE WOULD BE “SUFFICIENT, BUT NOT GREATER
THAN NECESSARY” TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF SENTENCING
Advisory Sentencing Guidelines
As the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, “a district court should begin all
sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable guidelines range. As a matter of
administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the guidelines should be the starting point
and the initial benchmark.” Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 536 (2013) (quoting Gall v.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 17 of 77
17
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007)). After correctly calculating the guidelines range, the Court
must next consider the statutory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50.
As directed by the Supreme Court, a district court “may not presume that a sentence within the
applicable Guidelines range is reasonable.” Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 352 (2009).
Rather, after calculating the appropriate guidelines range, sentencing courts must consider the
§3553(a) factors, make an individualized assessment, and impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but
not greater than necessary” to meet the objectives of sentencing. § 3553(a); Gall, 552 U.S. at 50
n.6.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
The 3553(a) factors include, among other things:
1. the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics
of the defendant;
2. the need for the sentence imposed
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training,
medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
(E) to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and
3. the kinds of sentences available.
In this case, we respectfully submit that the § 3553(a) factors—including Ms. Maxwell’s
“history and characteristics,” the need for the sentence imposed to provide “just punishment,” and
the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities - weigh heavily in favor of a sentence
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 18 of 77
18
significantly below the sentence recommended by the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and below
the sentence recommended by Probation.
Ms. Maxwell is Not a Danger to the Community
Ms. Maxwell poses no threat to the public and there is no risk that she will reoffend upon
her release from custody. The government has never argued, in connection with Ms. Maxwell’s
bail applications or otherwise, that Ms. Maxwell is a danger to the community; nor could they.
Apart from the conduct at issue in this case, which occurred almost 20 to 30 years ago, Ms.
Maxwell has never once been accused of a crime, much less sexual abuse of minors. In fact, after
leaving Epstein, Ms. Maxwell was involved in committed, long-term relationships with two men,
both of whom had young children who continue to support her. Ms. Maxwell is not a dangerous
criminal or a habitual offender. She is someone who wants nothing more than to live a normal
family life – something she was denied because of her association with Epstein and will now
almost certainly never have. The public does not need to be protected from Ms. Maxwell and such
considerations should have no weight in determining her sentence.
A Guidelines Sentence is Not Necessary to Achieve Specific or General Deterrence
A guidelines sentence for Ms. Maxwell would not serve the sentencing goals of either
specific or general deterrence. A significant sentence is not necessary to achieve the goal of
individual deterrence here. This is Ms. Maxwell’s only brush with the law. Ms. Maxwell has
already learned a painful lesson from her arrest and prosecution, has lost her marriage and her
stepchildren, and has been harshly punished during pre-sentence incarceration. Ms. Maxwell
has already shown that she will not reoffend and does not need to be further deterred from
committing crimes in the future.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 19 of 77
19
Nor can general deterrence be used to justify a harsh sentence for Ms. Maxwell. Probation
identifies two groups of potential offenders who will purportedly be deterred from committing
future crimes as a result of Ms. Maxwell’s sentence: (1) sexual predators who exploit and degrade
minor victims and (2) “untouchable individuals who feel their privilege and affluence entitle them
to victimize others without fear or consequence.” PSR at 67. With regard to the first group, courts
have expressed legitimate doubt as to whether people who have a sexual predilection for minors
can be deterred at all. See, e.g., United States v. D.M., 942 F. Supp. 2d 327, 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
(“[T]he compulsive behavior and disorders motivating many offenders is less susceptible to
general deterrence.”). With regard to the second group, the purported justification sweeps far too
broadly. Rather than identify a particular class of similarly situated defendants who will be
deterred from committing specific crimes, Probation essentially makes the sweeping assertion that
a harsh sentence for Ms. Maxwell is necessary to deter rich people from exploiting poor people.
See PSR at 67. That is not the purpose of general deterrence and should not be given any weight
in determining the appropriate sentence.
A Below Guidelines Sentence Would Provide Just Punishment, Promote Respect for the
Law, and Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities
While the offense conduct is indisputably serious, the record reflects that Epstein was the
main offender. Given the foregoing discussion, a shorter term of incarceration for Ms. Maxwell
best serves the long-term goals of punishment. A significantly below-guidelines sentence in this
case would also promote respect for the law by demonstrating that the justice system considers
each person who comes before the Court as an individual. A sentence tailored to Ghislaine
Maxwell’s particular circumstances—would appropriately distinguish between this defendant and
more culpable individuals similarly charged. See United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 187 (2d
Cir. 2010) (“[C]ourts must guard against unwarranted similarities among sentences for defendants
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 20 of 77
20
who have been found guilty of dissimilar conduct.”) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 55
(2007)).
In addition, a non-guidelines sentence would avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. It
would be plainly unjust to sentence Ghislaine Maxwell as if she were Jeffrey Epstein. Had Epstein
been tried on this indictment he would have been exposed to a comparable guideline range. Justice
would not be served by sentencing Ms. Maxwell to the extent of the more culpable Epstein. Nor
should she be sentenced as if she were Harvey Weinstein. Following a state jury trial convicting
him of forcible rape, Weinstein received a prison sentence of 23 years, less than the lowest part of
the guideline range calculated by Probation for Ms. Maxwell.
Moreover, a non-guidelines sentence would at least mitigate the drastic disparity between
the penalties under state and federal law in this case. The predicate state offense in Counts Three
and Four – New York Penal Law § 130.55 – is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum term of
90 days’ imprisonment. See United States v. Brown, 843 F.3d 74, 88–89 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2016)
(Pooler, J., dissenting) (noting the stark difference in sentences for offenses involving the sexual
exploitation of minors under federal law versus New York State law). Viewing the conduct of
conviction in the light most favorable to the government, imposition of a guideline sentence for
Ms. Maxwell will lead to inequitable and disparate results.
In this case, the goals of sentencing will be achieved by a significant downward variance
from the unduly harsh Guidelines range of 292 - 365 months and Probation’s recommended 240-
month sentence for offense conduct that occurred 18 to 28 years ago and where a 60-year-old
female defendant with no prior- or post-offense history of misconduct requires no rehabilitation
by incarceration and poses no risk of recidivism.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 21 of 77
21
Unusually Harsh Pre-Sentence Confinement Warrants a Downward Variance
The phantom of the Epstein death fiasco hung over Ms. Maxwell’s case and her detention.
Throughout this prosecution, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel challenged the conditions of her
extraordinary detention as being exceptionally prejudicial and unprecedented, most especially for
a 60-year-old female with no prior criminal record, who posed no threat to others, has no suicidal
tendencies past or present, and was not charged with crimes of violence. Ms. Maxwell was charged
with and convicted of acts allegedly committed 20 to 27 years ago.
The treatment meted out to Ms. Maxwell during her 22-month period of isolated detention
was unparalleled. From the outset, Ms. Maxwell’s conditions of detention were extraordinarily
restrictive and unjustifiable in view of her personal circumstances and were manifestly
unreasonable and unnecessary in view of meaningful alternatives available in the MDC. There is
no explanation for her extraordinary conditions of confinement other than calculated efforts by the
DOJ, BOP, MDC, and prosecutors to prevent another Epstein debacle and to ensure that Ms.
Maxwell would fill the chair vacated by Epstein’s demise. This assertion is supported by the swift
and cavalier transfer of Ms. Maxwell from 22 months of isolation to general population.
13
Ms.
Maxwell was subjected to an exceptionally intrusive prison regime which undermined her dignity,
health, safety, and psychological well-being. The following discussion regarding the restrictions
adds further texture to allegations concerning her confinement:
For 22 months, Ms. Maxwell was segregated from general population, locked in an
isolation cell measuring 9-by-7 feet. While confined to that cell, she was restricted from moving
13
The transfer was made without any notice to Ms. Maxwell’s counsel or consultation with Ms. Maxwell,
who had been prodded by psychologists daily until the day of the move. Notably, within the week leading
up to Ms. Maxwell’s transfer, the MDC asked women in general population how they felt about Ms.
Maxwell joining their unit. No reciprocal inquiry was afforded Ms. Maxwell when it came to a radical
change in her housing circumstances.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 22 of 77
22
out of range of the camera focused into the cell. During daytime hours she was isolated in a larger
space. At no time did she have contact with any other inmate. She was watched round-the-clock
by a security detail dedicated exclusively to guard her as she was consistently monitored by video
surveillance. Her security detail rotated every two weeks and consisted of high-level BOP staffers
recruited from facilities outside New York who were instructed to guard a high-profile, high-
security inmate on suicide watch.
14
Ms. Maxwell was subject to constantly changing rules and
whims. Her only source of information was from the guards who controlled her. They became the
source of information regarding rules, regulations, and opportunities. If they chose not to dispense
information or if they provided incorrect information, she had no basis to challenge them. She was
instructed not to speak to them lest she face disciplinary sanction. Such is not the case in general
population, where inmates assist other inmates and bear witness to and identify inconsistent and
improper treatment.
Unlike other inmates, Ms. Maxwell was subjected to various prohibitions and deprivations
not common to other inmates. She was monitored 24 hours a day by stationary security cameras
and by an additional hand-held camera that followed her while under the constant surveillance of
several prison guards who scrutinized her every move, even when she was showering, and taking
notes of her activities and recording them in various notebooks. The procedures in place deprived
Ms. Maxwell of any privacy and prevented uninterrupted sleep. The constant illuminations during
the night disrupted her sleep, leaving her sleep deprived and causing exhaustion that affected her
ability to concentrate. Initially, she was denied adequate and restful sleep by bright lights left on
in her cell for 24 hours a day coupled with a flashlight shining into her eyes or cell every 15 minutes
14
The cost of her individualized detention should be of great concern to the taxpaying public and warrants
an investigation into the propriety of this enormous expenditure for a single non-violent inmate.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 23 of 77
23
throughout the night. When the bright lights were turned off in her cell, bright lights remained on
directly outside her cell; and the flashlight checks continued, a regime completely inappropriate
for a non-suicidal inmate. This unjustified sleep deprivation - which continued throughout trial
and afterward - affected her general physical condition as well as her psychological well-being.
This practice does not exist in general population.
Despite never being in contact with any other inmate, under continuous surveillance by
prison guards and cameras, and escorted to and from any isolated location, she was subjected to
an excessive number of physical searches on a daily basis: pat-down searches, strip searches,
body-cavity searches. She was unnecessarily exposed to radiation from body scanners; and was
fortunate not to contract COVID when guards, who were not required to take COVID tests, looked
and searched inside her mouth. Her cell was searched multiple times daily. The searches were
redundant, unreasonable, unnecessary, and abusive beyond any legitimate penological purpose,
especially where Ms. Maxwell had no opportunity to acquire contraband. See Hodges v. Stanley,
712 F.2d 34, 35-36 (2d Cir. 1983). At times, searches were conducted in inappropriate ways and
were especially painful humiliating and intimidating, as when her breasts and genitalia were
touched in a rough and reckless manner. Reports by Ms. Maxwell and counsel concerning sexually
inappropriate searches by corrections officers went nowhere.
It is clearly established that excessive searches are unnecessary and unreasonable when a
prisoner is isolated from other inmates and never out of range of the camera or a guard. Ms.
Maxwell was searched every time she was removed from or returned to her isolation cell, even
when she had no conceivable opportunity (let alone no intention) to obtain contraband. Clearly,
the search policy is one that was not applied consistently. Having been in general population for
the past two months, Ms. Maxwell has only been searched after contact visits with counsel.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 24 of 77
24
Because Ms. Maxwell was kept in isolation, she was denied the minimal amenities
provided to general population inmates even during COVID. Except for programs that she
completed but could never put to use in isolation, she was not permitted to participate in general
programming (educational, leisure and wellness), to view movies, or to receive job assignment.
When she first arrived in the MDC, she was handcuffed while seated in a chair watching television.
During the first three months of detention, she was only allowed two 15-minute phone calls per
month, further limiting contact with her family, most especially with her husband and stepchildren.
This is the same restriction that was applied in MCC’s 10 South, the super-secure
special/segregated housing unit (“SHU”) for inmates charged with terrorism offenses. A further
chill was placed on her phone use when recordings of her calls were improperly released by the
MDC to a third party. To forestall further disruption of the privacy of her family, she curtailed
social use of the phone, further limiting contact with the outside.
Ms. Maxwell was denied adequate nutrition. She was provided meager, stale, often rancid
and inedible meals in violation of her non-flesh diet and in packaging that melted when heated in
a microwave. At times she was not provided food for prolonged periods or was given meals
missing components. She was denied access to basic hygiene items, e.g., soap, toothbrush,
toothpaste, and provided only a limited amount of toilet paper. For more than a year, she brushed
her teeth with an inch-long finger implement until given a normal toothbrush, that was never
replaced. Her commissary list was restricted, and she was not permitted to order items available
to other inmates.
15
When the tap water in her isolation cell was foul-smelling and undrinkable,
requests for bottled water were initially rejected by the prison administration. As a result of being
provided an inadequate diet, Ms. Maxwell has lost about 20 pounds and suffered from telogen
15
Even in general population, her commissary is more restricted than other inmates. A unit officer
confirmed that commissary operates on favoritism and discrimination.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 25 of 77
25
effluvium (hair loss due to stress and poor nutrition). Complaints made during trial regarding her
inadequate daily nutrition were received as a nuisance rather than cause for concern and attention.
An extra blanket provided because of the cold temperature in her cell was removed on the
claim it had not been approved by the warden, only to be returned when guards observed Ms.
Maxwell shaking while asleep and became concerned that she might be having a seizure. She was
given limited time to exercise in an area without sunlight or fresh air, then constructively denied
the ability to exercise because she was not provided proper-fitting footwear.
The treatment imposed on Ms. Maxwell was unnecessarily and intentionally degrading and
threatening. While in isolation, a high-ranking prison guard told Ms. Maxwell that there was
concern that she would be shot by sniper. Putting aside the reason and propriety of dispensing this
alarming information, the diminution of security concerns resulting in her transfer to general
population appears correlated to Ms. Maxwell having been sufficiently safeguarded to fill
Epstein’s empty seat – satisfying the concerns of the government, DOJ, BOP, MDC, prosecutors,
Court, and accusers.
Deprived of sleep and adequate nutrition and subjected to such undignified and
dehumanizing conditions of detention, Ms. Maxwell was considerably weakened psychologically
and had great difficulty concentrating, thwarting her ability to participate in and prepare her
defense. The impact of the pandemic coupled with the restrictive conditions of her confinement
made preparation for trial involving multi-million pages of documents especially difficult. Despite
being given a laptop, she encountered persistent technical issues reviewing electronic discovery,
at times unreadable on both the laptop and prison PC, and could not search, highlight, annotate,
save, or print. Further, delivery of her mail (legal and non-legal) was significantly delayed as were
receipt of CorrLinks emails, which were prematurely deleted by the MDC.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 26 of 77
26
Professional Assessment of Impact of Conditions of Confinement
A report by an independent forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Ms. Maxwell throughout
the period of her solitary confinement details the debilitating effect of those extraordinary
conditions. See Exhibit J, Report by Alexander Sasha Bardey, M.D.
16
Dr. Bardey performed an
ongoing forensic psychiatric evaluation of Ms. Maxwell including 14 sessions with her from
October 2020 to August 2021, including a battery of psychological tests to assess whether any
psychological matters were present that might be relevant to the disposition of her criminal matters.
In summary, Dr. Bardey determined:
Ms. Maxwell’s ability to cope with the stress of her legal proceedings and to
participate meaningfully in her defense are gradually being eroded over time due
to the conditions of her confinement, as reported by Ms. Maxwell, observed by this
examiner, and corroborated by Ms. Saffian and in the results of her psychological
16
The credentials of Alexander Sasha Bardey, M.D. include: Diplomate in Psychiatry, American Board of
Psychiatry and Neurology; Diplomate in Forensic Psychiatry, American Board of Psychiatry and
Neurology; Clinical Faculty, Department of Psychiatry, New York University Medical Center; and Adjunct
Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences New York Medical College.
In accordance with the Court’s Individual Practices in Criminal Cases, § 8(D); portions of the report have
been redacted and those portions will be filed under seal.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 27 of 77
27
testing. Recently she has manifested symptoms of depression and trauma such as
anxiety, and minor cognitive deficits. These continue to be exacerbated by ongoing
sleep deprivation and the conditions of her confinement. Given my extensive
experience working with incarcerated individuals, based on the manner in which
Ms. Maxwell’s symptoms have manifest, it is clear that her symptoms are in no
way related to the charges that have been brought against her. Instead they are
directly related to the conditions of her confinement.
The conditions of her confinement are, in my opinion, directly influencing her
increasing depression and trauma response symptoms, which will continue to
worsen over time if she remains incarcerated under the current conditions.
Exhibit J.
Pre-Sentence Detention Was Discriminatory
In this case, the conditions of detention for Ms. Maxwell were evidently discriminatory.
Considering her profile – her age, lack of violence or threat of danger to herself and others- the
brutality of her detention regime was completely unwarranted. The fact that she was subjected to
an anti-suicide surveillance regime even though she has no suicidal tendencies demonstrates that
she was being treated differently, without any objective justification. Following the verdict, and
in the presence of two officers, an MDC psychologist told Ms. Maxwell she was being placed on
suicide watch. The psychologist stated she had opposed placing Ms. Maxwell on suicide watch
because Ms. Maxwell did not then and never had presented any suicidal indications. However,
the psychologist’s professional opinion was overruled per directives from Washington, DC.
Isolated from all inmates and denied social visits due to COVID restrictions, her only
human contact was with the staff that controlled her, except when COVID restrictions for counsel
visits were lifted. As such, prison personnel were her primary source of MDC/BOP related
information, and she often received misinformation, i.e., the date by which she must file an
administrative remedy.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 28 of 77
28
Although legally presumed innocent, she was humiliated and treated in a way that even
established guilt cannot justify. The high-profile nature of the case and the defendant has not
diminished because the trial is over. Yet almost four months after the verdict, she was transferred
to general population because, according to MDC Legal :
MDC Brooklyn is entitled to assess Maxwell's security needs and change them as
the facts dictate. Here, Maxwell has been found guilty and will be sentenced
sometime this year. As such, the institution does not have the same security
concerns it had when she was a pretrial inmate. The institution is aware Maxwell
will be housed with other inmates and has instituted procedures to ensure she, like
other high-profile inmates, remains safe.
Email from Sophia Papapetru, Supervisory Staff Attorney (Apr. 19, 2022) (emphasis added).
Pre-Sentence Detention Was Equivalent to “Supermax” Confinement
The contrast between the atypical conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s detention and conventional
confinement is so pronounced that it is disingenuous to describe both forms of confinement under
the same terminology: “pretrial detention.” Ms. Maxwell’s detention equated to supermax
confinement and punishment.
The term “supermax confinement,” (whether pretrial or post-conviction) commonly refers
to long-term placement in a SHU and generally includes the following conditions: cells
approximately 8 by 10 feet; confinement to cells for between 22.5 and 24 hours per day; constant
monitoring of inmates; no congregation between inmates; very limited access to activities or
programs; and very limited access to visitors, including occurring though thick glass barriers or
via video.
17
Although Ms. Maxwell’s isolation was divided between a small isolation cell and a
larger isolated area, she was subjected to all other conditions associated with supermax
17
Ass'n of State Corr. Adm'rs and the Liman Ctr. for Pub. Interest Law at Yale Law Sch., Reforming
Restrictive Housing: The 2018 ASCA-Liman Nationwide Survey of Time-In-Cell, 9 (2018) (“Time-In-Cell”)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 29 of 77
29
confinement, conditions far more arduous than those experienced by pretrial detainees, or even
sentenced prisoners, in general population. Beyond duration of confinement (the quantitative
measure of imprisonment), she was subjected to disparate treatment (e.g., long-term isolation and
unusual restrictions and deprivation) amounting to a profound qualitative difference.
Pre-Sentence Detention Should Not Be Pre-Sentence Punishment
Convicted offenders are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. Despite
complaints made by Ms. Maxwell and her counsel, the MDC and BOP officials retained unchecked
authority to incarcerate her as they pleased on conditions that constituted unusual punishment for
a non-violent pretrial detainee who posed no threat to herself or others. Ms. Maxwell bore the
brunt of unusual conditions imposed by unfettered prison bureaucrats. The Supreme Court defines
“unusual” as “something different from that which is generally done.”
18
Under an original
understanding of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause (U.S. Const. amend. viii), “a
punishment is cruel and unusual if it is overly harsh in light of longstanding practice.”
19
Ms.
Maxwell’s conditions of confinement were significantly and unjustifiably harsher than conditions
in general population making it cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. Following Ms.
Maxwell’s arrest, then-Attorney General William Barr was intent on making sure what happened
to Epstein while in BOP custody would not be repeated and issued directives to be applied
exclusively to Ms. Maxwell. The rough, discriminatory, and punitive treatment was implemented
and condoned by supervisors and wardens.
20
High-ranking MDC personnel, psychologists, and
18
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-01 n.32 (citations omitted).
19
John F. Stinneford, The Original Meaning of “Cruel,” 105 GEO. L.J. 441, 467 (2017); The Original
Meaning of Unusual: The Eighth Amendment as a Bar to Cruel Innovation, 102 NW. U. L. Rev. 1739,
1745 (2008)
20
During Ms. Maxwell’s detention, approximately ten wardens have rotated in an out of the MDC.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 30 of 77
30
guards commented that they had never seen a non-violent, non-suicidal detainee subjected to such
drastic conditions.
21
The treatment was not based on any claim or evidence that Ms. Maxwell was
suicidal, dangerous, violent, or in need of discipline. Quite the contrary. The policies and actions
implemented to detain Ms. Maxwell violated clearly established rights of inmates to be free from
punishment and unreasonable searches. Courts have been confronted with cases challenging
conditions of confinement in the MDC. See Turkman v. Hasty, 789 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2015), which
involved many of the same challenges to conditions of confinement.
There can be no dispute that Ms. Maxwell’s detention was far more arduous and constituted
a more serious penalty than conventional detention is general population. While the hardship of
imprisonment is normally measured in quantitative terms, i.e., by the length of the prison term, the
hardship and deprivations experienced by Ms. Maxwell also had a qualitative aspect. The
difference between Ms. Maxwell’s isolation and typical prison conditions is so pronounced that
they differ not only in degree but in nature. This distinction demands a different calibration
whereby each day spent in isolation - especially where isolation is not based on any behavior
manifested by the inmate and while the inmate is presumed innocent - should result in an enhanced
time-served credit.
Incarceration During the Pandemic Supports a Well-Recognized Sentence Reduction
Courts in this district and elsewhere have acknowledged COVID hardship as a basis for
downward variances from the guidelines. But even “before the current pandemic, courts had
recognized that periods of pre-sentence custody spent in unusually hard conditions merited
recognition by courts in measuring the just sentence.” United States v. Romero, 15 CR. 445-18
21
Other similarly charged defendants, e.g., Keith Raniere , 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (NEXIUM case), and
Robert Sylvester Kelly, aka “R. Kelly,” 19 Cr. 286 (AMD), were detained in general population.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 31 of 77
31
(PAE), 2021 WL 1518622, at *4, *6 (SDNY Apr. 16, 2021) (considering defendant’s “13 months
of incarceration during a once-in-a-century pandemic” as part of defendant’s “history and
characteristics” in granting motion for compassionate release). The extraordinarily harsh
conditions Ms. Maxwell has faced during COVID warrant a downward variance.
This Court has “repeatedly found that the COVID-19 pandemic presents an extraordinary
and unprecedented threat to incarcerated individuals.” United States v. Tucker, 13 Cr. 378 (AJN),
2021 WL 37227450, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2021) (citations omitted). “[T]he existence of
COVID-19 has created harsher conditions, and that’s a fact that the Court should take into
account.” United States v. Crispin, 19 Cr. 323 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2020), Dkt. 124 at 9. It
is beyond dispute that the pandemic has made incarceration harsher and more punitive than would
otherwise have been the case. This is because the federal prisons, as ‘prime candidates’ for the
spread of the virus, have had to impose onerous lockdowns and restrictions that have made the
incarceration of prisoners far harsher than normal.” United States v. Rodriguez, 492 F. Supp. 3d
306, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Henareh, 11 Cr.
93 (JSR), 2021 WL 119016, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2021) (“the heightened restrictions imposed
upon all prisoners during the pandemic may enhance the deterrent effect of prison sentences served
during the pandemic by making the conditions of confinement harsher, both physically and
psychologically, than they would otherwise normally be.”); United States v. McRae, 17 Cr. 643
(PAE), 2021 WL 142277, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2021) (“a day spent in prison under extreme
lockdown and in well-founded fear of contracting a once-in-a-century deadly virus exacts a price
on a prisoner beyond that imposed by an ordinary day in prison. While such conditions are not
intended as punishment, incarceration in such circumstances is, unavoidably, experienced as more
punishing”).
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 32 of 77
32
Acknowledging that COVID hardship is a basis for downward variance, courts in this
District have given credit for each day of pretrial detention served during the pandemic See, e.g.,
United States v. Gonzalez, 18 Cr. 669 (JPO) (Apr. 16, 2021), Dkt. 250 at 17 (time served during
the pandemic is “basically like solitary confinement,” “harsher than a usual period,” “more
punitive,” “essentially the equivalent of either time and a half or two times what would ordinarily
be served” (emphasis added); United States. Brissett, 19 Cr. 153 (KMW) (Sept. 22, 2021, Dkt. 56
at 26 (giving 31 months extra time-served credit for every day “spent in deplorably brutal
conditions” during COVID.) Having served the entirety of her detention during the pandemic,
Ms. Maxwell deserves no less consideration. And because her extraordinary conditions of pretrial
detention were tantamount to pre-sentence punishment, she is entitled to an additional significant
downward variance from the applicable guidelines.
Extraordinary Conditions of Solitary Confinement Justifies a Hard-Time Credit
To determine the nature and extent to which Ms. Maxwell has been penalized, it is
important to factor in the impact of the hardship on Ms. Maxwell compared to general population
inmates. Based on the underpinnings of punishment and the principle of proportionality, Ms.
Maxwell should be given hard-time credit for the time she served in restricted and isolated
detention. Ms. Maxwell was subjected to punitive conditions and abuse in violation of clearly
established law protecting such individuals from punishment, to be free from “needlessly harsh
conditions of confinement.” Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 169 (2d Cir. 2007), rev’d on other
grounds, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). She posed no danger to the security of the
institution, the staff, or other inmates, and engaged in no misconduct requiring her placement in
segregation. Confining her to unusually restrictive isolation for the better part of two years permits
an inference of punitive intent in the absence of any penological reason. The claim that she was
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 33 of 77
33
segregated due to the high-profile nature of her case is belied by the fact that the case and the
inmate are still high profile, yet Ms. Maxwell is now in general population.
If a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal – if it is arbitrary
and purposeless- a court may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment and
may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979).
Failing to implement reasonable alternatives suggests that the decision to keep her restricted was
made with no legitimate penological purpose and amounts to impermissible punishment.
22
Proportionality Supports a Hard-Time Credit
The principle of proportionality – a core principle of the Eighth Amendment
23
and U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines
24
- requires that sentences should be relative to the crimes committed.
25
The Guidelines Manual states that one of the objectives at the core of the Sentencing Reform Act
is “proportionality in sentencing through a system that imposes appropriately different sentences
for criminal conduct of differing severity.”
26
If inmates in isolation or supermax detention suffer
22
Excepting inmates charged with terrorism, disciplined for severe institutional infractions and violence,
and Mexican drug lord “El Chapo”, Ms. Maxwell has been subjected to the most unusual and punitive form
of pretrial detention. Accordingly, it is appropriate to make a sentencing submission that exposes the
unfairness of her detention in the hope that the government (e.g., DOJ, BOP, and prosecutors) not repeat
such disparate treatment and courts recognize that it cannot abandon its supervisory powers to permit BOP
bureaucrats to exercise administrative measures without accountability.
23
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend xiii.
24
USSG, Part A, §§ 2-5 (2021).
25
See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 284-90 (1983) (discussing the longstanding principle that a punishment
should be proportionate to the crime).
26
USSG, Part A, §3. The most basic objective is to “combat crime through an effective, fair sentencing
system” through (i) honesty in sentencing (that is, removing the power of the parole commission to reduce
the term to be served); (ii) reasonable uniformity in sentencing - by reducing the wide disparity of sentences
for similar offenses; and (iii) proportionate sentences. See id. at §§2-3.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 34 of 77
34
more than prisoners in mainstream conditions, it follows that proportionality requires the severity
of confinement be factored into sentencing. Courts sentence convicted offenders to prison as
punishment. Courts order pretrial defendants detained to safeguard the community and to ensure
presence at court proceedings, not for punishment. In evaluating the nature and extent of
punishment, it is important to factor in the actual impact of the hardship on the defendant. If
detention imposes an additional burden on a certain category of defendants, it is necessary to
incorporate the actual total burden of the punishment into sentencing calibrations.
The principle of proportionality requires that the additional burden experienced by Ms.
Maxwell during the 22 months spent is in supermax-type conditions should be factored into the
Court’s sentencing calculus. Based on the underpinnings of punishment and the principle of
proportionality, a hard-time credit for Ms. Maxwell’s unusual detention is warranted.
Imprisonment in any form is a severe hardship. This is especially so when a person presumed to
be innocent is detained pretrial. The standard measure for evaluating the hardship of incarceration
is the length of the prison term, i.e., a value is placed on this quantitative measure when assessing
damages for wrongful conviction. Regardless of whether there is an objective mathematical
formula for Ms. Maxwell’s unique situation, a meaningful credit is warranted.
27
There is a manifestly stark qualitative difference in the degree of deprivation, restriction,
and punishment between the first 22 months of Ms. Maxwell’s detention and her current detention
in general population. Her detention in isolation – de facto solitary confinement comparable to
27
Compensation determinations for individuals wrongfully incarcerated is illustrative. Thirty-six states and
Washington, DC, have laws that offer compensation for exonerees. The federal standard to compensate
those who are wrongfully convicted is a minimum of $50,000 per year of incarceration, plus an additional
$50,000 for each year spent on death row. See https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-
bill/4019/text?r=13&s=1,The enhanced compensation for incarceration on death row recognizes the
qualitative severity of punishment beyond that which non-capital inmates are exposed.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 35 of 77
35
supermax detention - involved imprisonment within imprisonment. It was so different from
conventional conditions of pretrial detention as to constitute a different form of hardship and
tantamount to a different form of punishment. Typically, a defendant receives time-served credit
for each day incarcerated prior to sentencing. Pretrial detainees have received and continue to
receive credit beyond time served for detention during COVID. See, e.g., Gonzalez; Brissett,
supra. Ms. Maxwell should receive a hardship credit in addition to a COVID credit due to the
restrictive and harsh conditions of her pretrial detention.
CONCLUSION
Ghislaine Maxwell is not an heiress, villain, or vapid socialite. She has worked hard her
entire life. She has energy, drive, commitment, a strong work ethic, and desire to do good in the
world. She has supported friends and family through tough times and personal crisis and currently
is assisting women in her unit at the MDC. She has endeavored to contribute to society (e.g., by
becoming an EMT, developing a platform so that people in remote areas could receive quality
medical assistance, helping launch the Clinton Global Initiative, creating TerraMar, providing
GED tutoring for inmates in her unit) and will continue to do so throughout her sentence and when
she rejoins the community beyond prison walls. She has also tried to protect the people around
her (Ted Waitt’s children, her stepchildren, the people at TerraMar) from the onslaught of press
and public vilification that come with having been associated with her.
She had a difficult, traumatic childhood with an overbearing, narcissistic, and demanding
father. It made her vulnerable to Epstein, whom she met right after her father’s death. It is the
biggest mistake she made in her life and one that she has not and never will repeat. She has never
been accused of anything untoward in the over-15-year period since her relationship with Epstein
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 36 of 77
36
ended. In fact, she has been involved in two committed, long-term, loving relationships with men
who had young children. She is not a danger to the community and there is no concern about
recidivism.
In imposing an appropriate sentence, we urge the Court to credit a number of factors:
§ Ms. Maxwell is being sentenced for non-violent offenses which occurred
decades ago (1994 to 2004).
§ Ms. Maxwell is over 60 years old.
§ Ms. Maxwell is not a danger to the community in any way.
§ Ms. Maxwell has no prior criminal history or prior bad acts.
§ Ms. Maxwell has served the entirely of pre-sentence detention during the
COVID pandemic.
§ Ms. Maxwell served 22 months of pre-sentence detention under extraordinarily
abnormal and restrictive conditions of solitary confinement as a non-violent
defendant who posed no danger to herself or others.
§ Ms. Maxwell is being sentenced solely for reasons of punishment.
§ Ms. Maxwell is not being sentenced for rehabilitation.
§ Ms. Maxwell poses no risk of recidivism.
In addition, Ms. Maxwell’s personal characteristics and history of lawful behavior pre- and
and post-dating the offense conduct further distinguishes her situation and warrants sentencing
consideration.
Probation recognizes that a downward variance is warranted in this case. However,
noticeably absent from Probation’s justification is any mention of detention served during the
pandemic and under harsh conditions of solitary confinement. A poll taken of the CJA Panel and
Federal Defenders of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York has resulted in no cases
where Probation has referenced conditions of confinement or COVID, despite requests by defense
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 37 of 77
37
counsel. This absence is in stark contrast to recognition by courts in both districts (and elsewhere)
in granting downward variances and compassionate release based on the devastating impact the
pandemic and unduly harsh conditions of solitary confinement. Probation may ignore these factors,
but the Court should not.
We submit that the appropriate sentence in this case is one that is well below the advisory
guideline range.
Dated: June 15, 2022
Respectfully submitted:
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
225 Broadway, Suite 715
New York, NY 10011
212-243-1100
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212-957-7600
Jeffrey S. Pagluica
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN
950 17
th
Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80202
303-831-7364
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 38 of 77
EXHIBIT A
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 39 of 77
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 40 of 77
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 41 of 77
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 42 of 77
EXHIBIT B
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 43 of 77
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 44 of 77
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 45 of 77
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 46 of 77
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 47 of 77
Page 1 of 2
Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
May 2, 2022
To Honorable Judge Nathan:
My name is Christine Malina Maxwell. I am one of Ghislaine’s sisters. I am fully aware of the charges
to which Ghislaine has been found guilty. Despite this fact, I continue to hold my sister in the
highest regard. This letter is being submitted for your consideration as to her sentencing.
My Background
I will be 72 years old before the end of this year. I have been married to my husband, an endowed
professor of Physics and Art & Technology, for 34 years. We have three grown children: an
emergency medicine doctor, a research scientist, and a data scientist. Following in my mother's
footsteps, I have a Humanities PhD in the arena of Holocaust Studies from the University of Texas at
Dallas. Professionally, I have taught grade school, worked as an editor and marketing director for an
international scientific and educational publishing company, and served as President & CEO of an
information broker company and two online search engine companies. Today, my Internet
knowledge discovery company strives to help people find actionable insights to foster a better,
safer, smarter world.
What I Particularly Know About My Sister
Ghislaine is human. Each of us is born into this world with no choice into which family. Ghislaine
and my other siblings were all fortunate that our parents were able to provide us with a
comfortable upbringing. We always had enough to eat, a nice home to grow up in, and we all went
to good public or private schools. Yes, we were privileged, but we were not entitled and life was not
always perfect. Unfortunately, our family also became a grieving family. Our eldest brother Michael
was gravely injured in a car accident just after Ghislaine was born; he remained in a coma until his
death when Ghislaine was seven years old. In spite of this tragedy, I watched Ghislaine learn to
adapt and to become a productive and caring human being.
Ghislaine is independent and upstanding. Two attributes of our parents are pertinent to
understanding foundational aspects of Ghislaine’s character. First, both of our parents had an
incredible work ethic. We were all encouraged from an early age to work to earn money and to
respect the responsibility that came with that privilege. I have witnessed that work ethic in
Ghislaine. She is a far cry from the media’s wholesale mis-characterization of her as just a ‘British
Socialite’. Second, our parents raised us to respect others and to follow the Golden Rule: to treat
each person as we would like to be treated ourselves. I have never seen Ghislaine show any hurtful
intentions or tendencies against anyone, including any living thing. As you have stated on three
occasions, Ghislaine is not a threat to the public.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 48 of 77
Page 2 of 2
Ghislaine is educated and hard-working. She found her passion in life at aged 50, when she poured
her heart and soul into setting up and running a non-profit environmental organization, The
TerraMar Project. During its development, Ghislaine reached out to me for educational and
publishing advice. One measure of its success is evidenced in the major collaborations with entities
and organizations, such as National Geographic and Oxford University, that she managed to secure.
These recognized leaders could not afford to be linked to anything but the most reputable entities,
which is how they viewed Ghislaine’s endeavor. Each allowed their logos/names to be associated
on the public TerraMar website.
Ghislaine is a caring person. The goals that she set for TerraMar were laudable and reflect her
concern for the well-being of humanity. The only reason she was compelled to close down the
Project was to protect the supporting individuals and groups from being hounded and starting to be
vilified by the Press after her arrest. I know that Ghislaine still very much wants to find more ways
to give back to society.
We live in a world where malicious envy of people seen to have wealth and perceived ‘undeserved’
social position in life, is perfect fodder for selling newspapers and filling social media platforms
with gaudy, single faceted views. Ghislaine had money because she worked very hard to earn it. Her
positions demanded hard, diligent work, great intelligence, great management skills, great ability to
get on well with people from all walks of life, artistic creativity, and caring about others. Her work
was a far cry from the ‘flippity-jibit socialite’ label that the media has decided to cast on her every
time they reference her.
I am asking you to consider a lesser sentence for my sister Ghislaine. If Ghislaine is able to regain
freedom while she still has all her faculties, I know she has much to still offer in dedicating the rest
of what is left of her life to advocacy to helping others. Thank you for your consideration of all the
points in my letter that speak to the worthiness of Ghislaine’s contributions and abilities, and to her
truly wanting to make a positive difference again if given the opportunity to do so.
Respectfully,
CHRISTINE MALINA MAXWELL
11420 Santa Monica Blvd. #25424
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 49 of 77
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 50 of 77
ISABEL MAXWELL
11420 SANTA MONICA BLVD #25424
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
May 18, 2022
The Honorable Alison J. Nathans
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007
RE: LETTER IN SUPPORT OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL AT SENTENCING
Dear Judge Nathan:
My name is Isabel Maxwell and I am one of Ghislaine Maxwell’s older twin sisters. I am 71 years
of age and have known Ghislaine all her life. I am a Graduate of Oxford University, cofounder of
one of Silicon Valley’s earliest search engines, and a Technology Pioneer of the World
Economic Forum. I am of course aware of the charges of which she has been found guilty at
jury trial. I have been present at every one of the pretrial and trial court days. Notwithstanding
the jury’s verdict, I continue to hold Ghislaine in the highest regard and I believe very strongly
that she still has much of value to contribute in the world. I wish to share some things about my
sister that speak to her character and to her values that I have personally witnessed throughout
her life, including from the early 1990s right up to today.
Despite a very tragic start to her life due to a fatal car crash suffered by our eldest brother which
deprived Ghislaine of the immediate attention of our parents in her earliest years, I observed her
grow up and become a lovely, witty, resourceful, scrupulous and trustworthy human being. Our
parents taught us key values such as kindness, consideration, generosity, and an extremely
hard work ethic. For example, from a very early age each of us had to learn and demonstrate
what our father termed “the 3 Cs:Consideration, Concentration and Conciseness” and to
1
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 51 of 77
“always treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.” We were quizzed on these
principle
s constantly and had to regularly report examples of how we followed them. Ghislaine
was no exception in deeply absorbing, exhibiting and living these values. For example, I think it
is no small feat to train and become a helicopter pilot, an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT),
submersible pilot and more, as they all require dedication, concentration and quick thinking and
reactions and no small amount of courage. These are not the usual pursuits of a
“flibberti-gibbet” or a “socialite”, terms with which my sister has been branded with to this day.
Ghislaine was always an extremely generous, thoughtful and kind host in New York to her many
siblings including me, and her many nieces and nephews which I deeply appreciated. She also
helped our mother greatly in her late life and exhibited deep caring and concern which I noticed
personally on many occasions. For example she dropped everything and flew to France at her
own expense to help me with medical issues our mother was having and to just be there to
comfort her. She also did not hesitate to help her many personal friends with their problems not
only with kindness but practical help too and did not ask for anything in return.
My sister was also very entrepreneurial in creating and investing in multiple companies and
organizations which created products and services, as well as employment. An important
example is that in 2012, Ghislaine turned a lifelong passion for the oceans into a non-profit,
The TerraMar Project, with the mission to create a "global ocean community" based on the
idea of shared ownership and responsibility of the global “commons”—the high seas or
international waters. Efforts like these to help our planet are sorely needed and frankly, our
fragile Earth continues to need all the help and activism it can get. It would be within your
power to allow her to renew her fight as soon as possible for Ocean conservation In light of
the dire warning just issued by the UN that the “Earth’s oceans have reached the hottest
and most acidic levels on record”.
2
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 52 of 77
Ghislaine has managed to live through the most arduous pre-trial detention for over 500
days under an “enhanced security schedule” at MDC Brooklyn, with courage, humility and
stoicism. During her pre-trial detention, she suffered conditions that have constantly and
daily contravened the UN Mandela Rules of detention to which the US is a party. Examples
highlighted by Ghislaine’s counsel include “severe sleep deprivation, a lack of potable
water, prison computers that do not function and inability to access the Prosecution
discovery or keep jail guards from reviewing her confidential materials.” I am in awe of the
depth of her life force and forbearance. This shows me that she will be able to emerge from
incarceration with fortitude and magnanimity.
I conclude this letter with a reiteration of the government’s and the Court’s own repeated
assertions that Ghislaine is no threat to society; and in restating my strongest belief that
Ghislaine would bring all her deep and demonstrated qualities to bear again to help society.
I hope greatly that she will be given the opportunity to do so sooner rather than later.
Yours respectfully,
Isabel Maxwell
3
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 53 of 77
EXHIBIT E
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 54 of 77
IAN MAXWELL
15 Half Moon Street
London, W1J 7DZ, U.K.
1 | P a g e
29 April 2022
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Dear Judge Nathan,
I write this letter in support of my sister, Ghislaine, aware of the charges she was
been found guilty of, noting too that she has no prior criminal convictions in any jurisdiction.
I have known Ghislaine for over 60 years and have formed a settled view of her good
character based on our growing up together and continuing to remain close to this day. I
respect her enormously for her generous (often anonymous) donations to charities and
her valuable contributions to non-profit and other organizations; for her many personal
achievements which have included obtaining her helicopter licence, becoming a banker, an
EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) and a submersible pilot, as well as for the courage
she has shown in the face of close on two years of intolerable conditions of incarceration,
for her stoicism and indeed humility under such trying circumstances which have witnessed
so many setbacks for her. For all this and many other reasons besides I hold her high in my
affections and shall certainly continue to do so.
My sister is Aunt to 13 nieces and nephews (now aged 18 to 37) and I have witnessed at
first hand over the years her generosity to them – be it paying their school fees, mentoring
them as they grew up or providing job opportunities for them. She also has an enduring
capacity for friendship, a warm heart, and the ability to convert those feelings into action
when required to help those less fortunate than herself. She has discreetly supported some
friends financially and others by providing a roof over their heads when they were down on
their luck, often for weeks at a time. Ghislaine has also been a truly supportive sister.
During my divorce from my then wife my sister allowed me stay rent-free at her home in
London for six months when I had nowhere else to go until I was able to find alternative
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 55 of 77
IAN MAXWELL
15 Half Moon Street
London, W1J 7DZ, U.K.
2 | P a g e
accommodation. She never asked for anything in return. These are the actions of a
fundamentally good and decent person, with great empathy for others and a capacity for
altruism. This is the real – the true – Ghislaine whom I know and love as her brother.
My sister was fortunate – as I and my siblings were too - in benefitting from an
outstanding formal education which culminated for Ghislaine with a good degree from
Oxford University. She put that achievement to good effect, using amongst other skills her
gift for foreign languages and networking abilities to start up, invest in and develop
numerous businesses in the UK and in the US, employing people, making a difference,
making a contribution.
Perhaps her single most important contribution is to have converted a lifelong passion
for conservation and the oceans into a non-profit, The TerraMar Project, to create a robust
awareness program and a thriving social network around the oceans at a time when they
were perhaps not so high up the conservation agenda as they are today. TerraMar ran from
2012 to 2019 and at its peak had hundreds of thousands of visitors to its website and many
thousands of subscribers to its programs. None of this would have happened but for
Ghislaine’s determination, her hard work and capacity for organizing and mobilizing and
sheer perseverance as well as financial generosity in sustaining TerraMar over the years.
Those personal efforts of hers (along with others from key corporate supporters and
sponsors), were acknowledged when the U.N. made oceans conservation one of their 17
Sustainable Development Goals for 2015-30.
I believe Ghislaine still has much to contribute to the world if she is given a meaningful
opportunity to do so.
Sincerely yours,
Ian Maxwell
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 56 of 77
EXHIBIT F
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 57 of 77
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 58 of 77
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 59 of 77
EXHIBIT G
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 60 of 77
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 61 of 77
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 62 of 77
EXHIBIT H
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 63 of 77
Harriett Jagger
1 Moore Park Road
London, SW6 2JB
1
5 May 2022
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Dear Judge Nathan
My name is Harriett Jagger and I have known Ghislaine for 45 years since we were at school
together. We have always kept in touch and I have been writing to her regularly whilst she
has been in prison.
I am of course aware of the charges of which she has been convicted but my love, care,
support and lifelong friendship for her remains unchanged. I believe that true friendship
and understanding of what a person’s life journey takes, with its many twists and turns is
always a test.
I first met Ghislaine running down a corridor a school, she was 15 and carrying two pairs of
corduroys, one green, one black, she had great energy, a huge smile and I liked her
immediately. She was very popular at school, bright, kind, engaging and fun. Being close
friends we have of course had the social times, the help with advice on personal issues, the
connection of like-minded people. I totally trust Ghislaine to always be there for me the
same as I am for her.
When I was going through a sad separation from my husband and living in a lowly rental,
Ghislaine would often ring me with a ‘call me if you need cheering up’, knocking on the door
To see if I was OK, ‘do you want me to nip to the supermarket for anything’. I have always
liked her straight forward intelligent advice, her strong personality but with a genuine
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 64 of 77
Harriett Jagger
1 Moore Park Road
London, SW6 2JB
2
sensitive understanding of other people’s problems. Her warmth, devotion and huge loyalty
to her family and friends are qualities I admire enormously in her.
We had trips together, most notably to Madrid when we were both working on different
publications. I was showing her the ropes of the industry. She was happy to listen to other
people, take on board experiences and knowledge from those in the business. She was open
and friendly, often lacking in confidence herself she would work hard to understand and
appreciate those who knew more.
Despite being on different sides of the Atlantic we have always remained friends, Ghislaine
was always quick to answer a message, to meet up whenever possible, keen to keep a
grounded attachment to those she valued and were constant in her life. Wanting news,
catch ups and the gossip of old friends.
The last time I saw Ghislaine was in her home in New York a few years ago. I listened to her
as she spoke of her wish to find the security and happiness within a family unit, she was
visibly upset that this, the simplest of things for so many others had still not been part of
her own life. I felt hugely sorry for her. Having known her large and great family, her love
and great respect for her parents and closeness to her brothers and sisters, I knew this was
something she had always craved. I gave her a huge hug on departing. So I was then thrilled
to learn that she had finally met and married someone and was helping to bring up his
young children, but then desperate to hear that this much sought-after joy was so short
lived.
I read constantly in papers and social media about her, often from those who have never
met her, but this is not the Ghislaine I know and have known for 45 years. This is not a true
representation of the real person, my loyal, trusted and great friend. This person
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 65 of 77
Harriett Jagger
1 Moore Park Road
London, SW6 2JB
3
is not Ghislaine.
I can only plead for the court to show her some form of mercy and understanding with a
sentence that is survivable as I honestly believe she has so much more in her life to give.
Yours sincerely,
Harriett Jagger
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 66 of 77
EXHIBIT I
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 67 of 77
J
y
Ro
p
u
o
@p
o
o
.co
T
C
Tms
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 68 of 77
EXHIBIT J
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 69 of 77
!
Alexander S. Bardey, M.D.
Kate Termini, Psy.D.
Amy DeSimon, LMHC
!
303 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 403, NEW YORK, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 532-2322 Fax: (212) 532-2219 E-Mail: [email protected]
Laura Menninger, Esq.
Haddon, Morgan, & Foreman, P.C.
150 E. 10
th
Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
225 Broadway, Suite 715
New York, NY 10007
August 24, 2021
RE: Ghislaine Maxwell
Case No.: 20-Cr-330 (AJN)
Dear Ms. Menninger and Ms. Sternheim,
I am performing an ongoing forensic psychiatric evaluation of Ms. Maxwell to assess
whether any psychological matters are present that might be relevant to the disposition of her
criminal matters. In this letter, I address her current mental state and risk of flight in light of
an pending bail application.
I have met with Ms. Maxwell on numerous (14) occasions, from October 2020 to the
present via telephone interview, video teleconference, and one in-person meeting at
Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) on April 22, 2021. During those meetings, I reviewed
her personal, social, educational, vocational, and psychiatric histories. I performed a mental
status examination to assess her intelligence, thought processes, cognitive functioning,
memory, credibility, orientation, judgment, insight, and impulse control. I reviewed numerous
legal correspondences between Ms. Maxwell’s legal counsel, MDC legal, and the Honorable
Alison J. Nathan. Additionally, I conducted a collateral interview with Ms. Leah Saffian, part
of Ms. Maxwell’s legal counsel and a longtime acquaintance, on July 16, 2021, to gain insight
into Ms. Maxwell’s current level of functioning. The limits of confidentiality inherent to such
an evaluation were explained to Mr. Maxwell.
Term of Incarceration
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 70 of 77
Forensic-Psychiatric Report
Ghislaine Maxwell
Page 2 of 8
Ms. Maxwell reported that she has filed over 100 grievances regarding the conditions
of her pretrial confinement since her incarceration at the MDC in July of 2020. I reviewed
numerous grievances filed to the court by Ms. Maxwell’s legal team since her incarceration,
which allege that Ms. Maxwell has been subject to physical and emotional abuse by the
correction officers, poor and unsanitary living conditions, malnutrition, difficulties reviewing
the millions of legal discovery documents in the case against her, and sleep deprivation. She is
currently housed in segregation from all other inmates, reportedly with a team of 10 correction
officers at a time – three officers are on duty from 7am until 8pm, and two officers from 8pm
until 7am – groups of which rotate on a bi-weekly basis and many of the officers are reportedly
often hostile toward her. There are cameras on her constantly, some are stationary and one
camera is on wheels and follows her as she moves throughout the facility. Ms. Maxwell
reported that she has been threatened by correction officers that she will be subject to
discipline if she is ever out of the camera’s view.
Ms. Maxwell reported that she is subject to numerous pat searches per day, despite
being completely isolated, during which she alleges to have been touched in a sexually
inappropriate manner by correction officers on multiple occasions. Ms. Maxwell reported that
in January of 2021, a correction officer grabbed her breast with intense pressure during a
routine pat search, causing her significant discomfort and pain. She reported that she often
refuses to go to recreation to avoid being searched, which has negatively impacted her physical
health because she is unable to get fresh air or exercise. She was reportedly denied an extra
blanket in the winter and on more than one occasion an officer took one of her blankets from
her after her request for an extra blanket was granted. She further reported that she was not
provided a proper food regimen for the first few months she was incarcerated, wherein she
was provided with small, inadequate portions or rotten food. She has reportedly lost at least
15 pounds since her incarceration and has experienced hair loss. She reported that currently,
she suffers from constant headaches and back pain.
Ms. Maxwell is subject to flashlights being shined on the ceiling of her cell in 15-minute
intervals every night since she has been incarcerated. A letter authored by U.S. Attorney
Audrey Strauss states, “…MDC staff conduct flashlight checks every fifteen minutes because
the defendant, while not on suicide watch, is on an enhanced security schedule…because
MDC has identified a number of factors that raise heightened safety and security concerns
with respect to this defendant.”
1
Ms. Maxwell reported that these flashlight checks have
significantly hindered her ability to sleep, as she frequently wakes up every time the guards
shine the flashlight into her cell. When she was brought from the detention facility to court,
she was awoken at 3am, transported, and held in a cold cell for hours prior to her scheduled
court appearance.
Upon my initial meeting with Ms. Maxwell in October 2020, she did not manifest
psychiatric symptoms of any kind. She was coherent, optimistic, and confident in her ability
to defend herself in court. Over time, she has manifest depressive symptoms, anxiety, and
1
Letter, authored by U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss, Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 71 of 77
Forensic-Psychiatric Report
Ghislaine Maxwell
Page 3 of 8
minor cognitive deficits. More recently, during our meetings Ms. Maxwell has been depressed,
fatigued, anxious, and tearful. She endorsed experiencing irritability, memory deficits,
inattention, word finding difficulties, and trouble organizing and sequencing her legal
documents. Despite her symptoms, Ms. Maxwell has maintained her innocence and continues
to express a determination to fight her case.
Collateral Interview
I conducted a collateral telephone interview with Ms. Leah Saffian, Ms. Maxwell’s
longtime acquaintance and part of her legal team, to gain further insight into her current level
of functioning. Ms. Saffian reported that she has worked with Ms. Maxwell’s family since 1991,
as she represented her brother, Kevin Maxwell, at that time. She was reportedly hired to legally
represent Ms. Maxwell in 2015 and has spoken to her on the phone every day since that time.
Since Ms. Maxwell’s incarceration, Ms. Saffian has spent approximately six hours per
weekday on video conference with Ms. Maxwell, during which they review legal discovery
documents to prepare her defense for the upcoming trial. She described Ms. Maxwell as
“highly intelligent, well-educated, exceptional in so many ways,” however, she stated, “I have
seen her deteriorate” since her incarceration, which Ms. Saffian described as “frightening.”
She described the conditions under which Ms. Maxwell is being detained as “psychological
torture,” in that she is being held in “quasi-solitary confinement,” where the officers assigned
to her are often hostile.
Ms. Saffian characterized Ms. Maxwell as “vibrant” and “witty” prior to her recent
incarceration. However, she reported that currently, due to sleep deprivation and the
conditions of her confinement, there are days when Ms. Maxwell is so exhausted that she can’t
string a sentence together, she often misuses words, and she struggles to maintain focus. Ms.
Saffian reported that Ms. Maxwell is the most important asset in her own legal defense, as
there are millions of legal discovery documents to review, and Ms. Maxwell has been the
primary source of information to “string together the facts” of the case. Ms. Saffian added
that Ms. Maxwell is often the one to notice factual errors within the legal discovery that her
legal team often does not pick up on, however, due to “marked deterioration” since her
incarceration, it has been increasingly difficult for Ms. Maxwell to sustain her attention to do
so. Ms. Saffian added that recently, Ms. Maxwell has completely lost her sense of humor and
often “misses the beat.”
Ms. Saffian reported that she does not consider Ms. Maxwell to be a flight risk, as she
had the opportunity and means to do so prior to her arrest but she chose not to. Ms. Saffian
stated, “If I was permitted by law to post bail, I would put my house on the line without
hesitation.”
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 72 of 77
Forensic-Psychiatric Report
Ghislaine Maxwell
Page 4 of 8
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 73 of 77
Forensic-Psychiatric Report
Ghislaine Maxwell
Page 5 of 8
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 74 of 77
Forensic-Psychiatric Report
Ghislaine Maxwell
Page 6 of 8
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 75 of 77
Forensic-Psychiatric Report
Ghislaine Maxwell
Page 7 of 8
FORMULATION
Ms. Maxwell is a 59-year-old Caucasian woman, who is being evaluated at the request
of her attorney in order to assess her current mental state and risk of flight.
Ms. Maxwell has consistent described, and complained formally of, being subject to
unfair and inconsistent treatment by correction officers and ongoing sleep deprivation
throughout her incarceration. Research indicates that the experience of unfairness, disrespect,
and a lack of safety significantly contributes to psychological distress in incarcerated
individuals.
3
Furthermore, recent research on the effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive
functioning states that “sleep deprivation resulted in a loss of cognitive flexibility through
feedback blunting…sleep deprivation causes a fundamental problem with dynamic attentional
control.”
4
Furthermore, one study showed that:
Relative to baseline, sleep deprivation was associated with lower scores on Total EQ (decreased global
emotional intelligence), Intrapersonal functioning (reduced self-regard, assertiveness, sense of independence,
and self-actualization), Interpersonal functioning (reduced empathy toward others and quality of
interpersonal relationships), Stress Management skills (reduced impulse control and difficulty with delay of
gratification), and Behavioral Coping (reduced positive thinking and action orientation). Esoteric Thinking
(greater reliance on formal superstitions and magical thinking processes) was increased.
5
2
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington,
VA: American Psychiatric Publishing
3
Liebling, A., Durie, L., Stiles, A., & Tait, S. (2013). Revisiting prison suicide: The role of fairness and distress. In The
effects of imprisonment (pp. 229-251). Willan.
4
Honn, K. A., Hinson, J. M., Whitney, P., & Van Dongen, H. P. A. (2019). Cognitive flexibility: a distinct element of
performance impairment due to sleep deprivation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 126, 191-197.
5
Killgore, W. D., Kahn-Greene, E. T., Lipizzi, E. L., Newman, R. A., Kamimori, G. H., & Balkin, T. J. (2008). Sleep
deprivation reduces perceived emotional intelligence and constructive thinking skills. Sleep medicine, 9(5), 517-526.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 76 of 77
Forensic-Psychiatric Report
Ghislaine Maxwell
Page 8 of 8
Ms. Maxwell’s ability to cope with the stress of her legal proceedings and to participate
meaningfully in her defense are gradually being eroded over time due to the conditions of her
confinement, as reported by Ms. Maxwell, observed by this examiner, and corroborated by
Ms. Saffian and in the results of her psychological testing. Recently she has manifested
symptoms of depression and trauma such as anxiety, and minor cognitive deficits. These
continue to be exacerbated by ongoing sleep deprivation and the conditions of her
confinement. Given my extensive experience working with incarcerated individuals, based on
the manner in which Ms. Maxwell’s symptoms have manifest, it is clear that her symptoms are
in no way related to the charges that have been brought against her. Instead they are directly
related to the conditions of her confinement.
The conditions of her confinement are, in my opinion, directly influencing her increasing
depression and trauma response symptoms, which will continue to worsen over time if she
remains incarcerated under the current conditions. If she were permitted to be released into
the community, her symptoms would likely resolve completely, and she would be afforded the
opportunity to properly prepare her defense for trial.
At this time, Ms. Maxwell currently poses little to no risk to the community, as she has
no prior history of criminal or violent behavior and her current charges could only have been
manifest under a very specific set of circumstances which she cannot find herself in if she were
to be released. Additionally, in my psychiatric opinion, she is not a flight risk, as she has
maintained a strong desire to fight the case against her, despite any psychiatric symptoms that
have manifested. Ms. Maxwell has the personality characteristics of a fighter, she has
demonstrated a firm resolve to fight her current charges and clear her name. There is no
indication that she would attempt to flee given her personality profile.
Respectfully,
Alexander Sasha Bardey, M.D.
FIFTH AVENUE FORENSICS
Diplomate in Psychiatry, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
Diplomate in Forensic Psychiatry, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
Clinical Faculty, Department of Psychiatry, New York University Medical Center
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
New York Medical College
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 77 of 77
