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 | Maxwell's motion denied by District Court without an evidentiary hearing. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell argues Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are untimely. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court declines Maxwell's motion to strike surplusage at this juncture. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell moves to strike surplusage from the S1 superseding indictment, specifically allegations r... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court agrees that some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated but acknowledges defamation action re... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion for a new trial denied by District Court. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massage incident | New Mexico Ranch | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury instruction on Count Four, requiring finding that Maxwell transported Jane for sexual activity. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of the District Court's response. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell appealed the District Court's denial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court found that nothing in the NPA or its negotiation history suggested it precluded USAO-SDNY f... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cancellation of Maria's trip to New Mexico | New Mexico (intended destin... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of motion to compel immediate disclosure of Minor Victim-4's prior statements. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rule 33 Motion Ruling | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of lawsuit against Maxwell | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Offenses committed by Maxwell that were subject to motions to dismiss. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of temporary release | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flashlight checks performed on Maxwell every 15 minutes due to enhanced security schedule. | MDC | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's appeal/contention regarding the application of the NPA to her prosecution in SDNY. | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan declined to modify protective order | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defamation Action | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massage incident where Maxwell instructed Farmer to undress, performed a massage, exposed Farmer'... | The room where Farmer was s... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Travel with Epstein and Maxwell | Various (Travel) | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court denied Maxwell's motion for reconsideration. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | MAXWELL arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported multiple times from Florida to New York for... | Florida to New York | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014859.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. Maxwell argued that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) immunized her from prosecution. The court rejected her argument, holding that the NPA made with the USAO-SDFL does not legally bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting her.
DOJ-OGR-00014857.jpg
This page from a legal document details the conclusion of a trial against a defendant named Maxwell, who was found guilty of multiple charges on December 29, 2021. The document's primary focus is on a post-verdict issue involving 'Juror 50', who revealed in press interviews that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse, directly contradicting his 'no' answers to related questions on his pre-trial jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00014819.jpg
This document is a victim's statement from a legal case, filed on August 22, 2022. The author details the profound and lasting personal trauma resulting from abuse, including professional and personal struggles, alcoholism, and suicide attempts. The victim recounts traveling to New York to attend Maxwell's trial, finding the testimony of other victims therapeutic, and expresses bewilderment at how Maxwell can maintain her innocence despite the guilty verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00014818.jpg
This document is a personal testimony, likely from a legal proceeding, in which the author recounts their experience with Epstein and Maxwell. The author describes how they manipulated her attempt to apply to the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) by controlling her application and weight, creating a 'no-win situation' she likens to human trafficking. The testimony concludes by detailing her escape to the U.K. in 2007 and the severe, long-lasting psychological trauma she has endured since, including a diagnosis of PTSD.
DOJ-OGR-00014816.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, from the case against Maxwell. It contains a portion of a victim impact statement and the beginning of testimony from another victim, Ms. Ransome. Ms. Ransome describes moving to New York at age 22, where she was met by an "Epstein-Maxwell recruiter" named Natalya, and speaks of the lasting trauma from the "hideous trap set by Epstein, Maxwell and other co-conspirators."
DOJ-OGR-00014809.jpg
This document is a victim impact statement from the sister of a woman named Maria. The speaker details the profound and lasting trauma inflicted upon Maria, herself, and their entire family by Maxwell and Epstein, describing abuse, sexual assault, and threats. The statement highlights the ripple effects of this trauma and accuses Maxwell of lying and threatening them to shut down investigations when they attempted to speak out to the media.
DOJ-OGR-00014805.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed on August 22, 2022, likely from a prosecutor's statement during the sentencing of a defendant named Maxwell. The speaker argues that Maxwell was Jeffrey Epstein's 'right hand' and a willing 'partner in crime,' who took millions from him to fund a luxurious lifestyle while they molested children together. The statement highlights Maxwell's disturbing worldview, the lasting trauma inflicted on her victims, and her complete lack of remorse.
DOJ-OGR-00014781.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the supervisory authority of Kellen, an employee, in relation to Maxwell, Epstein, and an unnamed defendant. It details arguments about whether Kellen's actions, such as making calls and scheduling massage appointments, constituted supervisory authority, and mentions testimony from pilots regarding Kellen's reporting structure. The discussion also touches upon a five-point enhancement for sex offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00008590.jpg
This document is a page from jury instructions (Instruction No. 36) in a federal criminal case, filed on December 18, 2021. It details the 'overt act' element required to prove a conspiracy charge, listing specific allegations from the indictment against conspirators Maxwell and Epstein. The alleged overt acts, occurring between 1994 and 2002, involve the sexual abuse and exploitation of underage victims identified as Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn across multiple locations including New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London.
DOJ-OGR-00008507.jpg
This legal document, part of an indictment, details overt acts related to a criminal case against Epstein and Maxwell. It outlines specific instances between 1994 and 2004 where they allegedly conspired to recruit and sexually abuse several minors, identified as Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn, in various locations including New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London. The document describes methods of enticement, such as arranging travel and providing cash payments, and alleges that one victim, Carolyn, was also encouraged to recruit other girls.
DOJ-OGR-00008506.jpg
This document outlines Jury Instruction No. 36 regarding the 'Third Element' of a conspiracy charge, specifically requiring proof of an 'overt act.' It details specific allegations from the indictment against Maxwell involving Epstein and victims identified as Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn across various years and locations.
DOJ-OGR-00008368.jpg
This legal document, part of a court case and addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues that any potential attorney-client privilege regarding statements about a person named Carolyn was waived. The argument posits that because Mr. Scarola disclosed this information to the government, the confidentiality required for privilege was broken. The document cites multiple legal precedents to support the claim that this voluntary disclosure to a third party (the government) results in the forfeiture of the privilege, which is relevant for assessing Carolyn's credibility as she testifies against Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008276.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 9, 2021, addresses the authentication and admissibility of Government Exhibit 52, described as a 'book' or 'household manual' belonging to Epstein and Maxwell. It discusses the defendant's challenge to Alessi's knowledge regarding the exhibit's origins and highlights the manual's contents, which detail practices and relationships between the defendant, Epstein, and other individuals. The document asserts that authentication does not require direct knowledge of creation or seizure, and chain of custody issues pertain to weight rather than admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00001871.jpg
This legal document, a letter from the law office of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that their client, Ghislaine Maxwell, is being subjected to "draconian" and punitive pretrial detention conditions. The letter posits that these harsh measures are not related to Maxwell's own conduct but are a direct result of the government's attempt to repair its reputation following the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein in federal custody. The attorney details failed attempts to resolve these issues through internal prison channels and claims the conditions are impeding Maxwell's ability to prepare her legal defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001785.jpg
This document, a court filing from October 6, 2020, outlines charges against Maxwell, including enticing and transporting minors for illegal sex acts, and perjury, with conduct dating between 1994 and 1997. It details the Government's handling of 'Materials' (documents and photographs) related to a broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, explaining that while these materials post-date the indictment's period and won't be used as direct trial evidence, they will be produced to the defense under a protective order due to victim identification concerns and ongoing investigation risks.
DOJ-OGR-00001635.jpg
This is a legal letter dated July 21, 2020, from Jeffrey Pagliuca of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., to Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York. The attorney, representing defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, requests that the court issue an order prohibiting the U.S. Government and its affiliates from making extrajudicial statements about the case, arguing such statements are prejudicial and violate Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001571.jpg
This legal document alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell groomed and befriended a minor, referred to as Minor Victim-3, in London between 1994 and 1995. Maxwell introduced the victim to Epstein and encouraged her to give him massages, knowing Epstein would sexually abuse her, which he subsequently did. The document also states that in a 2016 deposition for a civil case, Maxwell provided false statements under oath to conceal her role in facilitating the abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00001570.jpg
This legal document alleges that MAXWELL actively participated with Epstein in the sexual abuse of minors. It details how MAXWELL allegedly involved 'Minor Victim-1' in sexualized massages and encouraged her to travel to Epstein's properties in New York and Florida, and how she groomed 'Minor Victim-2' in New Mexico around 1996 for abuse by Epstein, knowing the victim was underage.
DOJ-OGR-00001512.jpg
This document is a page from a legal indictment detailing allegations against Maxwell involving the abuse of three minor victims between 1994 and 1997 in locations including New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London. It lists specific acts such as group sexual encounters and unsolicited massages, and introduces 'Count Two' regarding the enticement of a minor to travel for illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00001510.jpg
This legal document alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell groomed and facilitated the sexual abuse of "Minor Victim-3" by Epstein in London between 1994 and 1995, knowing the victim was under 18. It further claims that in a 2016 deposition for a civil case, Maxwell committed perjury by providing false statements to conceal her role in these activities.
DOJ-OGR-00001489.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 2, 2020, provides background on a sealed indictment returned on June 29, 2020. The indictment charges the defendant, Maxwell, with multiple crimes related to a scheme with Epstein to sexually abuse underage girls between 1994 and 1997. The document alleges Maxwell, a close associate of Epstein, played a key role in identifying, grooming, and causing minors to travel to Epstein's properties in New York, Florida, and New Mexico for abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00001480.jpg
This page of a legal indictment details specific allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell. It accuses her of facilitating the sexual abuse of two minors in the mid-1990s: providing an unsolicited massage to 'Minor Victim-2' in New Mexico and encouraging 'Minor Victim-3' to massage Jeffrey Epstein in London. The document also outlines Count Four, charging Maxwell with the transportation of a minor between 1994 and 1997 for the purpose of criminal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00001475.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell groomed and facilitated the sexual abuse of a minor, referred to as Minor Victim-3, by Epstein in London between 1994 and 1995. The document further claims that in a 2016 deposition for a civil case, Maxwell committed perjury by providing false statements to conceal her role in these activities.
DOJ-OGR-00001474.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, alleges Ghislaine Maxwell's direct involvement in the sexual abuse and trafficking of two minors alongside Jeffrey Epstein. It claims Maxwell facilitated the abuse of "Minor Victim-1" by involving her in sexualized massages and encouraging her travel to Epstein's residences in New York and Florida. The document also details Maxwell's alleged grooming of "Minor Victim-2" in New Mexico around 1996, stating Maxwell knew the victim was underage and actively prepared her for abuse by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00001462.jpg
This document is page 22 of a legal filing dated May 27, 2021, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release. The text asserts that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion in detaining Maxwell as a flight risk and highlights Maxwell's extensive access to discovery materials via computers (13 hours/day) and legal counsel via video calls (25 hours/week) at the MDC.
| 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 |
Legal Review
Review of discovery materials
Scheduling an appointment for Carolyn
Carolyn's mom would receive a phone call, which Carolyn later learned was from Maxwell, and would hand the phone to Carolyn to schedule an appointment.
Small talk during massage
making small talk
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
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.
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.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Scheduling an appointment for Carolyn
Shawn would receive a phone call from Maxwell and would then tell Carolyn that she had a phone call and instruct her to say yes to the appointment.
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.
Scheduling massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
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.
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.
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.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
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.
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.
Taking over the house
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
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.
Request to question Juror 50
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity