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-00000903.jpg
This is a Notice of Appearance filed on March 30, 2021, in the case of United States v. Maxwell (Docket No. 21-770). Lara Pomerantz of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is entering the case as additional counsel, joining co-counsel Won S. Shin, on behalf of the United States (Appellee). The document certifies her admission to the court and provides her contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00000838.jpg
This is a Docketing Notice from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Case 21-770), dated March 29, 2021. It notifies counsel that the appeal has been docketed and provides instructions regarding the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form, which must be returned within 14 days. The document references the lower court case (1:20-cr-330-1) presided over by Judge Nathan in the SDNY.
DOJ-OGR-00000770.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of victim Annie Farmer by her counsel Sigrid S. McCawley, argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing supports redacting victims' personal information for privacy but strongly opposes redacting the names of co-conspirators and enablers, asserting that their identities should be public to ensure accountability and justice. It references other civil lawsuits against entities like JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank as part of a broader effort to hold third parties involved in the sex-trafficking scheme accountable.
DOJ-OGR-00000769.jpg
This legal document argues for the release of grand jury transcripts with narrowly tailored redactions to protect the identities of victims like Ms. Farmer, citing their strong privacy interests as established in previous cases. However, it argues against redacting the names of third parties who have not been charged or alleged to be involved in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, suggesting such an effort "smacks of a cover up" and requires independent court scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00000768.jpg
This legal document argues for the disclosure of grand jury transcripts in the case of Epstein and Maxwell. It contends that the extraordinary nature of their crimes, the vast number of victims, and the public interest in full accountability outweigh the usual need for grand jury secrecy. The filing emphasizes that unsealing the transcripts would help expose the full network of enablers without forcing victims to face further retaliation and that the victims themselves support this transparency.
DOJ-OGR-00000767.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 5, 2025, is a motion arguing for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to the sex-trafficking crimes of Epstein and Maxwell. The filing, made on behalf of victims, asserts that transparency is crucial for justice, public understanding, and holding all responsible parties accountable, citing legal precedent from the Second Circuit. It emphasizes the victims' desire for full disclosure to illuminate the scope of the abuse and identify those who enabled the criminal enterprise.
DOJ-OGR-00000764.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 4, 2025, is a letter from the U.S. Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts. The government discusses legal precedents for maintaining grand jury secrecy and updates the court on its progress in notifying victims, particularly those related to the 'Maxwell and Epstein matters'. The government commits to continuing its efforts to contact all relevant victims and to protect the interests of all third parties involved.
DOJ-OGR-00000762.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer, filed on August 5, 2025. The Government responds to a court order demanding information about the potential unsealing of grand jury materials from the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government acknowledges the public's strong right of access to trial exhibits, noting that exhibits from the Maxwell trial were already made public, but requests an extension until August 8, 2025, to provide its final position on unsealing the grand jury exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00000754.jpg
This legal document is a filing from the Government in response to a Court order in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The Government confirms it reviewed the Maxwell grand jury transcripts before moving to unseal them and has notified all but one of the referenced victims. The filing also states that the Government is submitting the complete grand jury materials for both Epstein and Maxwell to the Court under seal to protect victim-identifying information.
DOJ-OGR-00000751.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated July 29, 2025, concerning the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for disclosure based on intense public interest and the 'magnitude and abhorrence' of Epstein's crimes, while noting that victim identification will be redacted. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum and details the dates of the original grand jury proceedings in 2019, 2020, and 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00000750.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 29, 2025, argues for the disclosure of grand jury materials. It analyzes legal precedents, noting that while the Government may oppose disclosure, factors like public interest can be overriding. The document states that Defendant Epstein is deceased and cannot assert a position, while Defendant Maxwell intends to respond, and argues that the significant public interest in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell justifies disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00000748.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 29, 2025, outlines a court order issued on July 22, 2025. The Court has directed the Government to file a legal memorandum and submit extensive materials concerning the grand jury proceedings of Epstein and Maxwell. This includes indices, complete transcripts, proposed redactions, and a statement on whether victims were notified, all in relation to a motion to unseal the grand jury records.
DOJ-OGR-00000747.jpg
This legal memorandum is submitted by the Government in response to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the cases of Epstein and Maxwell. The Government outlines the legal framework for such a release, citing a 'Circuit split' on the issue and precedent from the Second Circuit, while emphasizing its duty to protect victims. It also references a prior, unsuccessful attempt to unseal similar transcripts related to Epstein in the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000735.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing, argues for the release of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases due to public interest and diminished privacy concerns following Epstein's death. The Department of Justice commits to redacting victim-identifying information before release. The document is submitted by Pamela J. Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General.
DOJ-OGR-00000026.jpg
This legal document, page 25 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, is part of a ruling that upholds a lower court's decision. The court concludes that the District Court did not make an error in applying a 'leadership enhancement' to Maxwell's sentence or in its justification for the sentence's length. The ruling quotes the District Court's findings regarding Maxwell's 'pivotal role' in facilitating abuse and the gravity of her offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00000025.jpg
This legal document, page 24 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the sentencing of an individual named Maxwell. It affirms the District Court's application of a 'four-level leadership enhancement' based on testimony from two of Epstein's pilots. The pilots testified that Maxwell supervised her assistant, Sarah Kellen, and other testimony corroborated Maxwell's high-level role as Epstein's 'number two and the lady of the house' in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00000024.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 22-1426), argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's claims of trial prejudice and unreasonable sentencing. It asserts that evidence of her criminal conduct in New Mexico was properly included and did not cause 'substantial prejudice,' as her defense received related interview notes from a victim named Jane well before trial. The document also defends Maxwell's 240-month sentence as procedurally reasonable, countering her argument that the District Court erred in its application of sentencing guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the legal arguments concerning the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that it is not uncertain what conduct Maxwell was convicted for and that the evidence presented at trial did not prejudicially vary from the indictment. The text cites several legal precedents to define the high standards a defendant must meet to prove a prejudicial variance that would warrant a reversal of the conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00000020.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the District Court's response to a specific note from the jury during deliberations in the trial of Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent for sexual activity was present. The document states the court found the question too difficult to "parse factually and legally" and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions, an action which is being analyzed in this filing.
DOJ-OGR-00000019.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It discusses a Rule 33 motion regarding Juror 50's erroneous responses during voir dire in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The text argues that under the 'McDonough' standard, a new trial is not warranted because the District Court found the juror's errors were not deliberate and would not have resulted in a strike for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, concerning the appeal of a District Court's decision. The appellant, Maxwell, argues for a new trial on the grounds that Juror 50 was dishonest on a jury questionnaire regarding a history of sexual abuse. The text outlines the high legal standard of "abuse of discretion" required to overturn the lower court's ruling, emphasizing that new trials are granted only sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00000017.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426), bearing a DOJ stamp, dated September 17, 2024. It presents a legal argument that the 2003 PROTECT Act amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which eliminates the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse offenses during the life of the child, applies retroactively. The text specifically concludes that this amendment applies to 'Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.'
DOJ-OGR-00000016.jpg
This is page 15 of an appellate court decision (likely the Second Circuit) dated September 17, 2024, affirming legal interpretations in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rejects Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations for Counts Three, Four, and Six, citing the 'facts of the case' approach over the 'categorical approach' and referencing testimony from a victim named 'Jane' regarding interstate transportation and sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00000014.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts. It cites the case of Annabi to support the claim that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting an individual named Maxwell. The document includes footnotes referencing U.S. Code to detail the powers and limitations of U.S. Attorneys, including the exception that the Attorney General can authorize them to act outside their districts.
DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely an appellate opinion) rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prevents her prosecution in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The court cites *United States v. Annabi* to conclude that the NPA was expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts like SDNY. Footnotes discuss legal precedents regarding plea agreements and double jeopardy.
| 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 |
General life updates and invitations
The witness (Kate) testifies that she communicated with Maxwell by phone. Maxwell would ask about her life, if she was dating, and if she wanted to visit. Sexual topics were not discussed on the phone.
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.
Famous people (e.g., Prince Andrew, Donald Trump)
The witness, Kate, states that Maxwell might be talking on the phone about her famous friends while Kate was present.
Instruction to touch Epstein
According to Kate's testimony, when Maxwell introduced her to Epstein, Maxwell told her to give his feet a squeeze to show how strong she was.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
Appointments
Maxwell has been on record since 2009 calling Carolyn for appointments.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Carolyn testified that Maxwell called her to schedule sexualized massages.
Staff rules and operation of the Palm Beach residence
A household manual dictated the operation of the Palm Beach residence and included rules for staff, such as to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing'.
Scheduling an appointment to massage Epstein
Maxwell, acting as one of Epstein's employees, would call victims to schedule appointments for them to massage Epstein at his Palm Beach Residence.
Interaction with Epstein
Maxwell directed Juan Alessi to speak to Epstein only when spoken to and not to look him in the eyes.
Advice about boyfriends
Maxwell advised Jane that once she has a sexual relationship with a boyfriend, she can always have one again because they are 'grandfathered in'.
Maxwell's personal life, relationships, and her boyfriend...
Maxwell told Kate 'amazing things' about her boyfriend, describing him as a philanthropist who liked to help young people, and suggested it would be wonderful for Kate to meet him.
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
Scheduling massages and scheme operations
Maxwell instructed Kellen on how to schedule massages and manage a part of the criminal scheme that Maxwell had previously handled.
Scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein
Carolyn named Maxwell as one of two people who would call her to schedule massages with Jeffrey Epstein.
Mr. Epstein's status
Maxwell would inform Carolyn upon her arrival that Mr. Epstein was out for a jog but would be back any moment, and that Carolyn could go upstairs and set up.
Culture of silence
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
Culture of silence
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
Travel
Maxwell told Kate that she was very accommodating and that whenever Kate wanted to visit, Maxwell and others ('they') would take care of everything. This conversation happened before Maxwell gave Kate a handbag.
Setting up appointment times for so-called massages
Maxwell would call Carolyn to set up appointments for massages, particularly in the first year or two.
Travel
Maxwell told Kate that she was very accommodating and that whenever Kate wanted to visit, Maxwell and others ('they') would take care of everything. This conversation happened before Maxwell gave Kate a handbag.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
Maxwell Reply
A reply brief filed by the Defendant, Maxwell, which raises an argument about the jury instructions.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity