MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
The Speaker
|
Abusive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Victim perpetrator implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Abusive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co involvement in criminal activity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Author of the document
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial defendant prosecution |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Adversarial accused victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Abuser victim dynamic |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirators alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nicole Simmons
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
This Court
|
Litigant court |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The district court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Associative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Transactional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Accomplice co conspirator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Elizabeth Stein
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Prince Andrew
|
Social |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Queen Mum
|
Commentator observer |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Witness (A. Farmer)
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Recruiter target |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juan Alessi
|
Professional supervisor subordinate |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00001461.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, refutes claims made by an inmate named Maxwell regarding her conditions of confinement at the MDC. It distinguishes her situation from a case involving Tiffany Days, who experienced sewage flooding at a different facility (the MCC), and argues there is no evidence of such issues at the MDC. The document also counters Maxwell's claim of being in "solitary confinement" by detailing her daily access to a day room and various amenities for thirteen hours.
DOJ-OGR-00001457.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion denying a renewed motion for temporary release by an individual named Maxwell. The Court bases its decision on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided any compelling new reasons, such as new evidence or a change in law, to warrant a reversal of its prior decision. The document dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding a recent letter briefing and a prior order by Judge Nathan, concluding that there was no error in the original determination that Maxwell is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, addresses post-conviction bail proceedings concerning 'Maxwell.' It clarifies that an Order regarding security checks at the MDC is not a bail determination and that Maxwell's 'renewed motion' for bail is substantively meritless. The document affirms Judge Nathan's prior findings that Maxwell is a risk of flight and that no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001447.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, details the denial of a renewed bail request by a defendant named Maxwell on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan denied the application, concluding that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple citizenships, financial resources, and a history of providing incomplete information to the Court and Pretrial Services. The judge found that no combination of bail conditions could reasonably assure Maxwell's appearance at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001445.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770, dated May 27, 2021) outlines the Government's argument for the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. It references three denied bail applications and details a specific hearing on July 14, 2020, where Judge Nathan ruled Maxwell a flight risk based on strong evidence and the nature of the offenses. The document highlights that the indictment is supported by three victim-witnesses, corroborated by flight records and diaries.
DOJ-OGR-00001444.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing from May 27, 2021, outlines allegations against Maxwell for her role as a co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997. It details her alleged actions of identifying, enticing, and grooming victims, and notes that a Superseding Indictment expanded the charges against her, including sex trafficking conspiracy, extended the timeline of the conspiracy to 2004, and identified a fourth victim.
DOJ-OGR-00001443.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, outlines the procedural history of defendant Maxwell's attempts to secure pretrial release. It details how Judge Nathan denied her bail applications on December 28, 2020, and March 22, 2021, and how the Court affirmed these denials on April 27, 2021. The document also notes that Maxwell filed another renewed motion on May 17, 2021, and that her trial is scheduled to begin on November 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001442.jpg
This legal document is a preliminary statement outlining the timeline of Ghislaine Maxwell's indictment and arrest in the summer of 2020. It details the six counts against her, including conspiracy to entice minors and perjury, and notes that United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan denied her bail following a hearing on July 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001404.jpg
This is a legal notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated April 27, 2021, regarding the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Case 21-770). The document formally announces that the case manager assigned to the matter has been changed. It provides a phone number for any inquiries related to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00001376.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 21-770, is a filing by the defense for a defendant named Maxwell. The defense argues that the government's indictment and additional charges are not evidence, do not strengthen the case, and do not justify her continued detention. The document also refutes the government's claim of corroborated witness testimony and notes that the defense has requested a continuance for the July trial, arguing that denying bail under these circumstances would be prejudicial.
DOJ-OGR-00001372.jpg
This legal document is a Notice of Appearance filed on April 16, 2021, in the case of United States v. Maxwell (Docket No. 21-58(L), 21-770(CON)). Attorney Alison Moe of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is formally entering her appearance as additional co-counsel for the United States of America, joining Won S. Shin.
DOJ-OGR-00001366.jpg
This document is the cover page for a sealed supporting exhibit filed on April 13, 2021, for the legal case United States of America v. Maxwell. The document is identified by case numbers 21-770 and 21-58, and has a Department of Justice control number.
DOJ-OGR-00001337.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Judge Nathan's decision to deny temporary release to the defendant, Maxwell, was not a clear error or abuse of discretion. The document states that the judge thoroughly reviewed Maxwell's arguments, including comparisons to other cases, but found significant differences that justified continued detention. It also asserts that the judge has ensured Maxwell has adequate access to her counsel to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001336.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Judge Nathan's decision-making was proper and based on substantial evidence provided by the Government. It refutes arguments from the defendant, Maxwell, particularly her claim that she was not hiding from law enforcement, citing the judge's finding that Maxwell demonstrated an "extraordinary capacity to evade detection."
DOJ-OGR-00001334.jpg
This document represents page 17 of a legal brief filed on April 12, 2021, arguing against the release of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text asserts that Judge Nathan did not err in denying bail, citing Maxwell as a flight risk and noting the strength of the Government's evidence, which includes multiple victims and documentary corroboration. It discusses legal standards for temporary release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) and cites relevant case law.
DOJ-OGR-00001329.jpg
This legal document details Judge Nathan's reasons for denying Ghislaine Maxwell's previous bail requests, citing her significant wealth as a flight risk and her "extraordinary capacity to evade detection." The judge was also unpersuaded by arguments that Maxwell's confinement conditions were overly onerous. The document concludes by noting that on February 23, 2021, Maxwell filed a third bail application, proposing to renounce her French and British citizenship as a new condition.
DOJ-OGR-00001328.jpg
This legal document excerpt details Judge Nathan's reasoning for denying bail to the defendant, Maxwell. The judge found a significant discrepancy between the $3.5 million in assets Maxwell declared in July 2020 and a later estimate of her and her spouse's net worth at $22.5 million. This, along with an insufficient bail proposal, led the judge to conclude Maxwell demonstrated a lack of candor and remained a significant flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001324.jpg
This legal document details Judge Nathan's reasoning for denying bail to Maxwell. The judge found that the government had proven Maxwell is a substantial flight risk, citing her failure to provide her whereabouts, her significant and opaque financial resources, and her demonstrated sophistication in hiding herself and her assets. Consequently, Judge Nathan concluded that even the most restrictive release conditions would be insufficient to ensure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001322.jpg
This legal document describes the initial bail hearing for a defendant named Maxwell, which took place on July 14, 2020. During the hearing, Judge Nathan heard arguments and received statements from victims, including Annie Farmer, who accused Maxwell of grooming and abuse. Based on the testimony and risk of flight, Judge Nathan ordered Maxwell to be detained.
DOJ-OGR-00001320.jpg
This legal document, dated April 12, 2021, is a page from a 'Statement of Facts' in the case against Maxwell. It outlines the indictment charging her with facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997, detailing her alleged methods of grooming victims. The document also notes that a superseding indictment expanded the charges and timeframe to 2004, and mentions that Judge Nathan had previously denied Maxwell's bail applications, with her trial scheduled for July 12, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001310.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Defective Filing' issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 5, 2021, regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket 21-58). The notice indicates that a 'Notice of Appearance as Additional Counsel' submitted by the United States (Appellee) did not comply with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) or Local Rules, though the specific reason is not checked in the visible list. The document lists Judge Debra Ann Livingston and Clerk Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe as court officials.
DOJ-OGR-00001045.jpg
This page of a court transcript records the conclusion of a victim impact statement by Ms. Farmer urging the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell due to flight risk and the severity of her alleged crimes. Following this, the Court confirms with the government representative, Ms. Moe, that there are no other victims wishing to speak and clarifies that the government is not seeking specific findings regarding danger to the community for pretrial detention purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00000989.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the Government arguing against granting bail to the defendant in case 20-cr-00330-AJN. The Government asserts its case is strong, based on detailed testimony from multiple victims about predatory conduct in the 1990s, which is corroborated by evidence such as flight records and diary entries. The Government expresses concern that bailing the defendant would deny justice to the victims and states it will urge the Court to deny bail at a hearing on July 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00000949.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, alleges that the defendant, in concert with Epstein and Maxwell, groomed and abused minors, using offers of financial assistance for travel and education as a lure. It further claims that in a 2016 deposition for a civil suit in the Southern District of New York, the defendant repeatedly lied under oath about her involvement. The document then outlines the legal basis for pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act, citing relevant case law concerning flight risk and danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00000908.jpg
This legal document is a Notice of Appearance filed on April 1, 2021, by attorney David Oscar Markus of the firm Markus/Moss PLLC. He is formally notifying the court that he will be serving as additional counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket No. 21-770/21-58), acting as co-counsel alongside Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP.
| 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