MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
29 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Judicial |
14
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
30 | |
|
location
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
18 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Friend |
11
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
56 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
location
USA
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Perpetrator victim |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Acquaintance |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Association |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jury selection for Maxwell's trial, including a jury questionnaire where Juror 50 failed to accur... | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court denies Maxwell's motion for a new trial. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's indictment was denied, trial proceeded, and she is serving a 20-year sentence. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court's findings and application of sentencing guidelines, including a four-level leader... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Relocation of victims from Palm Beach to other places in the U.S. (including Southern District of... | Palm Beach, other places in... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell moved for rehearing en banc, which was denied. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion to compel discovery from the Government, including Jencks Act, Brady, Giglio mat... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court's ruling on Maxwell's discovery requests, concluding she is not entitled to expedited disco... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion is being considered by the Court. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court's consideration of categories of questions Maxwell argues are ambiguous. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Argument by Maxwell that perjury counts should be dismissed due to immateriality of statements. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's intention to produce 'Materials' to the defendant (Maxwell) under a protective order... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of expedited discovery timeline | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion to dismiss perjury counts from a civil case deposition. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell contends that the NPA bars her prosecution as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or to compel Government to s... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's sentencing to concurrent terms of imprisonment (60, 120, 240 months) followed by superv... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment due to alleged actual prejudice from Government's delay i... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal arguments by Maxwell to dismiss indictment | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment based on fabricated stories and perjurious conspiracy by ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell seeks writ of mandamus to direct District Court to modify protective order. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell seeks to consolidate her criminal appeal with civil appeal Guiffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-241... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court denies Maxwell's motions to consolidate as moot. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell appeals denial of motion to modify a protective order. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00015159.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 11, 2025, is a page from a court filing analyzing whether to unseal grand jury testimony related to an individual named Maxwell. The analysis considers several factors, including the potential harm to Maxwell and her family, the fact that much of the information was already revealed during her trial, and the status of witnesses. The document concludes that some factors are neutral while the factor of prior public disclosure is consistent with unsealing.
DOJ-OGR-00015158.jpg
This legal document discusses the timing of grand jury proceedings as a factor in deciding whether to release information to the public. It contrasts the recent case involving Maxwell and Epstein, where victims are still alive and the events are relatively recent, with historical precedents where the passage of time has diminished the need for secrecy. The argument suggests that the circumstances of the Maxwell case, particularly its recency, weigh against the release of grand jury materials.
DOJ-OGR-00015157.jpg
This legal document, a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, discusses factors weighing against unsealing grand jury records, including testimony from a mayoral candidate and information related to the Epstein-Maxwell investigation. It argues that the Government's broad claims of public interest are not sufficiently linked to the materials at issue, and that a blanket request for disclosure, rather than tailored release, is a factor against unsealing. The document emphasizes the significance of the specificity of information sought for disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00015149.jpg
This legal document describes the process of two separate grand jury proceedings related to indictments against an individual named Maxwell. It details that on June 29, 2020, and March 29, 2021, grand juries heard testimony from an FBI agent and an NYPD detective, respectively, who presented hearsay evidence summarizing the government's investigation. The document outlines the exhibits presented and the subsequent indictments returned by the juries.
DOJ-OGR-00002412.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, a federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 1623), and various Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure that are cited as legal precedent within the associated court document. The cases listed involve parties such as Giuffre, Dershowitz, Maxwell, and the United States government.
DOJ-OGR-00002363(1).jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing requesting the suppression of evidence and dismissal of certain counts. The argument centers on the crucial role of protective orders in civil litigation, citing legal precedents to assert that these orders encourage full disclosure and must be strictly enforced. The filing applies this principle to the "Maxwell depositions," which it characterizes as highly intrusive, to argue against the use of evidence derived from them.
DOJ-OGR-00002362.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is a motion on behalf of a defendant named Maxwell. It argues that the government colluded with another party, starting in early 2016, to have Maxwell charged with perjury and that the government attempted to deprive her of due process through an ex parte request. The filing references a separate civil case where a similar government request was denied and calls for an evidentiary hearing to investigate potential collusion with the prosecutor's office.
DOJ-OGR-00002360.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues that the government's prior representations about its investigation were false. It details how attorneys from Boies Schiller, including David Boies himself, approached the government in 2016 to urge an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell for sex trafficking and perjury, providing evidence from abused clients. A quote from David Boies highlights his firm's conviction that they could prove a "massive sex trafficking ring" was in operation.
DOJ-OGR-00002360(3).jpg
This legal document page, filed on February 4, 2021, argues that the government was aware of information beyond public filings when it began its investigation. It cites a February 29, 2016 meeting where attorneys from Boies Schiller urged AUSA Amanda Kramer to investigate Epstein and Maxwell, and a later approach in summer 2016 by David Boies himself asking the government to consider perjury charges against Maxwell. The document includes a quote from Boies stating they had evidence of a "massive sex trafficking ring."
DOJ-OGR-00002360(2).jpg
This legal document argues that the government's representations about when it began its investigation were false. It provides evidence that attorneys from the law firm Boies Schiller, including David Boies himself, approached the government in 2016 to urge an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell for sex trafficking and perjury, citing evidence from abused clients. A quote from David Boies details the extensive evidence they claimed to possess about a "massive sex trafficking ring."
DOJ-OGR-00002360(1).jpg
This legal document argues that the government's claims about when its investigation began were false. It provides evidence that attorneys from Boies Schiller met with AUSA Amanda Kramer on February 29, 2016, to urge an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell. Furthermore, it states that David Boies approached the government in the summer of 2016 to ask about charging Maxwell with perjury, quoting Boies on the extensive evidence they had of a "massive sex trafficking ring."
DOJ-OGR-00002358(2).jpg
This legal document describes the aftermath of a 2017 defamation case settlement between Giuffre and Maxwell, noting Maxwell's unsuccessful attempts to have confidential information returned by the law firm Boies Schiller. It then alleges that in August 2020, Maxwell discovered the government had improperly obtained a file related to the case through an ex parte proceeding, violating a Protective Order that required notice to all parties.
DOJ-OGR-00002357(2).jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, discusses a July 2016 deposition of Maxwell. It states that a superseding indictment alleges Maxwell committed perjury during this deposition by providing false testimony about her knowledge of sexual activities at Epstein's Palm Beach house. The document notes that a district court had previously compelled her testimony over privacy objections, believing a protective order was sufficient.
DOJ-OGR-00002356.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's depositions from April and July 2016. It outlines the terms of a Protective Order for confidential materials and describes a motion by Virginia Giuffre's lawyers (Boies Schiller) to compel Maxwell to answer questions, with assurances that her answers would remain confidential. A footnote alleges that Giuffre's side had previously leaked confidential information to the media and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00002356(3).jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN filed on February 4, 2021, discusses the terms of a Protective Order concerning confidential materials. It describes how Maxwell relied on this order to testify in her April and July 2016 depositions and a subsequent motion by Giuffre to compel her to answer further questions. The document includes assurances from the law firm Boies Schiller that any answers would remain confidential under the order.
DOJ-OGR-00002356(1).jpg
This document, a legal filing from February 2021, discusses the handling of confidential material under a Protective Order and details events surrounding Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions. It notes Maxwell's agreement to testify without invoking self-incrimination privilege and Giuffre's subsequent motion to compel further answers. A footnote also highlights concerns about the misuse and leaking of confidential information by the plaintiff and her lawyers to the media, other claimants, and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00002355(3).jpg
This legal document describes the contentious discovery phase of a lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. It notes that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, attempted to turn the suit into a 'proxy prosecution of Epstein' and sought to add a 'law enforcement' exception to a court-mandated Protective Order, which Maxwell rejected. The case ultimately settled before trial, rendering certain provisions of the Protective Order moot.
DOJ-OGR-00002355(2).jpg
This legal document describes the contentious discovery phase of a lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. It highlights that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, attempted to use the lawsuit as a 'proxy prosecution of Epstein' and sought to include a 'law enforcement' exception in the protective order to share information with the government, a proposal Maxwell rejected. The document emphasizes the vast and sensitive nature of the information exchanged, citing a related case to describe the discovery as 'hard-fought' and 'extensive'.
DOJ-OGR-00002354.jpg
This legal document, part of the criminal case against Maxwell, argues that the government's prosecution is based on tainted evidence. The defense claims the government made false representations to circumvent a civil Protective Order from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' defamation case, and therefore the perjury charges stemming from Maxwell's depositions in that case should be suppressed. The document provides factual background on the civil case, where Virginia Giuffre alleged Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were involved in a scheme to sexually abuse and traffic her.
DOJ-OGR-00002354(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing in the criminal case against Maxwell, argues that the government's prosecution is fundamentally flawed. The defense claims the government made untrue representations to circumvent a civil Protective Order from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' defamation case, and improperly used Maxwell's deposition transcripts from that case to bring perjury charges. The document requests that the Court suppress this evidence or grant a hearing to investigate the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00002350.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases from various U.S. courts, including District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and cover a range of civil and criminal matters.
DOJ-OGR-00002350(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the larger document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and involve various individuals and corporate entities.
DOJ-OGR-00002349.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 134) in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. The filing argues that the court should suppress evidence obtained from a prior civil case, 'Giuffre v. Maxwell', and dismiss certain counts because 'The Government' allegedly circumvented a protective order and violated due process. At a minimum, the filing requests a hearing to investigate the government's alleged misrepresentations.
DOJ-OGR-00002267.jpg
This document is a webpage printout from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), dated January 4, 2021, and filed in a legal case. It outlines the BOP's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically its policy of reviewing inmates for home confinement based on risk factors defined by the CDC. This policy was implemented following a directive from Attorney General Barr on March 26, 2020, which led to a significant increase in inmates being placed on home confinement.
DOJ-OGR-00002266(1).jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated January 4, 2021, presenting a statistical update on COVID-19 testing for inmates within the Bureau of Prisons. It reports 95,830 completed tests, 2,220 pending tests, and 38,569 total positive tests. The document is part of case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN and was filed on January 13, 2021.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| N/A | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Criminal fine imposed at sentencing. | View |
| 1999-10-19 | Received | Financial Trust C... | MAXWELL | $18,300,000.00 | Transfer sourced from the sale of JP Morgan Ins... | View |
| 1999-10-19 | Received | Financial Trust C... | MAXWELL | $0.00 | Transfer to Maxwell discussed in email; investi... | View |
Reconsideration of the District Court's response
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of a response from the District Court, claiming it resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Travel and an invitation to an island
Maxwell asked Carolyn about her travel history and invited her to an island. Carolyn declined, stating she was too young and her mother would not permit it.
Scheduling massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
Carolyn's career aspirations
Maxwell asked Carolyn what she wanted to do in the future, and Carolyn replied that she wanted to become a massage therapist.
Epstein's sexual preferences and needs
Maxwell told the witness, Kate, that Epstein likes 'cute, young, pretty' girls and that he needed to have sex about three times a day. These conversations occurred frequently ('All the time') within the first couple of months after they met.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Reconsideration of response to jury note
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of Judge Nathan's response to the jury's note and raised issues of constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Taking over the house
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
Reply to Government's Opposition
A reply brief cited as "Maxwell Reply at 18" where the Defendant asserts the government failed to prove its case.
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Massages
Maxwell asked Annie if she had ever received a massage and told her she would have the opportunity to have one, describing how enjoyable it would be.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell would call Carolyn to ask if she was available for an appointment, sometimes mentioning that she and Mr. Epstein would be out of town and flying in.
Civil Case Testimony
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
Epstein's whereabouts
Maxwell informing Carolyn that Epstein was on a jog or would be back soon and that she could go upstairs to set up.
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
Spending time vs Communicating
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
Reconsideration of response
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
Small talk during massage
making small talk
Legal Review
Review of discovery materials
Request to question Juror 50
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
Denial of motion
Denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial.
Motion for new trial
Moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity