MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-07-14 | Bail hearing | Judge Nathan held a bail hearing for Maxwell, heard oral arguments, and received statements from ... | District Court | View |
| 2020-07-14 | Legal proceeding | A lengthy bail hearing was held for Maxwell, at which bail was denied. | N/A | View |
| 2020-07-14 | N/A | Bail hearing where Judge Nathan heard arguments and victim statements, ultimately ordering Maxwel... | District Court | View |
| 2020-07-13 | N/A | Arraignment (implied by 'next week's arraignment' in July 10 email) | Court | View |
| 2020-07-10 | N/A | Maxwell detention/bail hearing | Court (likely SDNY) | View |
| 2020-07-08 | Legal proceeding | Indictment S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) was filed with ministerial corrections. | N/A | View |
| 2020-07-08 | Legal proceeding | Superseding Indictment S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) was filed. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-07-06 | N/A | Transport of Ghislaine Maxwell involves transfer of personal property (released to defense) and s... | New York | View |
| 2020-07-02 | Arrest | Maxwell was arrested. | N/A | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Initial appearance call | Court (Virtual/Telephonic) | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Transfer to NY | From arrest location to New... | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Maxwell consented to remand | Unknown (Holding) | View |
| 2020-07-02 | Arrest | Maxwell was arrested and the original indictment was unsealed. | N/A | View |
| 2020-06-30 | N/A | Transmission of subscriber information for phone numbers in contact with Maxwell via email attach... | N/A | View |
| 2020-06-29 | Legal proceeding | Indictment 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) was filed, charging Maxwell in six counts. | N/A | View |
| 2020-04-10 | N/A | Date associated with GM (Ghislaine Maxwell) prosecution memo attachment. | New York (implied context) | View |
| 2020-01-23 | N/A | Federal Grand Jury Subpoena issued (referenced in subject line: Fed GJ SBP 2020-01-23). | n/a | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Arrest | The arrest of Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | COVID-19 Pandemic | Global/General Context | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Legal discovery | Maxwell learned that the government had obtained a file by grand jury subpoena and had instituted... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Financial disclosure | Maxwell represented to Pretrial Services that she possessed around $3.5 million in assets. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Arrest | Arrest of Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Financial reporting | A report estimated the net worth of Maxwell and her spouse to be approximately $22.5 million. | N/A | View |
| 2019-11-13 | N/A | Maxwell's ISP activity detected for Facebook. | Unknown | View |
| 2019-10-30 | N/A | Subpoena issued for tolls on Maxwell's phone (referenced as past action in email). | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000007.jpg
This legal document page details the terms of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which included an eighteen-month sentence and a provision that the United States would not prosecute his potential co-conspirators, specifically naming Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. The document then transitions to discussing the indictment filed against Maxwell, outlining that it contained eight counts, with six proceeding to trial, and provides footnotes detailing the specific charges related to sex trafficking and conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00000005.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the issues presented on appeal regarding the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, including arguments concerning Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations, and juror impartiality. The court summarizes its holdings, stating that the NPA did not bind the prosecution in New York, the statute of limitations was not violated, and the motion for a new trial based on juror conduct was properly denied.
DOJ-OGR-00021103.jpg
This legal document presents an argument that all charges against the Appellant should be dismissed because they are barred by the five-year statute of limitations for noncapital offenses. The document contends that the Government's reliance on a specific exception (18 U.S.C. § 3283) for crimes against children is an overreach and warns that a broad interpretation of this statute could have significant negative consequences within the judicial circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00021094.jpg
This legal document argues that the government is precluded from charging the Appellant under Count Six due to a prior Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The argument is based on legal precedent against prosecuting the same crime in a new district and asserts that the charge, involving the trafficking of a witness named Carolyn, falls within the time period covered by the NPA. The document also references a court's finding that the NPA covers Maxwell's involvement in offenses committed by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021078.jpg
This legal document argues that the Appellant, identified as Maxwell, is a third-party beneficiary of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein and therefore has standing to enforce it. The brief contends that a District Court erred in its ruling that the NPA's immunity for co-conspirators only applied to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), arguing the agreement's plain text referring to "the United States" should bind all U.S. Attorney's Offices, including the one in the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY).
DOJ-OGR-00021075.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal appellate brief filed on February 28, 2023, arguing that all counts against Ghislaine Maxwell should be dismissed based on the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein. It claims the NPA immunized Maxwell as a 'potential co-conspirator' and cites Supreme Court precedent requiring prosecutors to fulfill plea agreement promises. Additionally, the text argues jury prejudice occurred due to media interviews given by accusers named Carolyn and Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00021069.jpg
This legal document summarizes testimony from two witnesses, Kate and Annie Farmer, regarding their interactions with Maxwell and Epstein. Kate testified that Maxwell introduced her to Epstein, leading to sexual activity during massages, while Annie Farmer testified about being introduced to Epstein by her sister, being inappropriately touched by him, and later receiving a massage from Maxwell. The document concludes by noting a jury instruction that the physical contact described was not considered “illegal sexual activity” in the context of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021051.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023, related to Case 22-1426. It outlines the arguments for an appeal on behalf of 'Maxwell', alleging multiple errors by the District Court, including the handling of 'Juror 50' in a post-trial hearing, constructively amending the indictment, and applying an incorrect sentencing guideline. The filing seeks to have the sentence vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00021032.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the roles and relationships of individuals involved in a scheme, specifically focusing on the defendant's leadership over Sarah Kellen and their shared association with Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell. It highlights evidence from flight records showing the defendant and Sarah Kellen traveling on Epstein's private jet, indicating an overlap in their involvement as close associates in an ongoing scheme. The discussion also touches upon legal arguments regarding the supervision of criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00021015.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) appeal regarding jury instructions. The filing asserts that the trial court correctly rejected the defendant's proposed instruction because it was unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate. The core issue revolves around whether sexual activity outside of New York could form the basis for a conviction, with the filing arguing that the existing jury charge sufficiently clarified that the violation had to be under New York Penal Law.
DOJ-OGR-00021000.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 29, 2022. The Court is addressing a post-trial Rule 29 motion for acquittal filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The Court denies the motion for the remaining counts (Three, Four, and Six), after noting the jury acquitted on Count Two and the Court deemed Counts One and Five multiplicitous. The document specifically begins to analyze Count Four, which involves the transportation of a minor named Jane for sexual activity in violation of New York law between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00020988.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 45-page legal filing (Document 657) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on April 29, 2022. It outlines the 'Applicable law' regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically discussing 'multiplicitous' indictments and how courts determine if multiple conspiracy charges constitute the same offense. It cites various Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedents to establish the legal standard for reviewing such claims.
DOJ-OGR-00020987.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, details post-conviction proceedings in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The Defendant, convicted on three conspiracy counts related to a conspiracy with Epstein, argued the counts were multiplicitous and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Government conceded that Counts One and Three were multiplicitous, and the Court agreed not to impose judgment on Count One and also granted the Defendant's motion to not enter judgment on Count Five, finding it multiplicitous with Count Three.
DOJ-OGR-00020982.jpg
This document is page 39 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rejects the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on Juror 50's conduct, concluding that Juror 50 did not commit perjury, was not biased, and testified credibly at a post-trial hearing regarding his failure to disclose prior sexual abuse during the questionnaire phase. The judge rules that the 'McDonough inquiry' standard for a new trial was not met.
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) claim that one of the jurors, Juror 50, was biased. The defendant cites other legal cases (Afshar, Burton) to support the claim, but the court distinguishes the facts and finds Juror 50 was not biased, noting his credible testimony about his past abuse. The court also dismisses the argument that Juror 50's post-trial interviews and social media activity are evidence of bias.
DOJ-OGR-00020974.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) challenge to the impartiality of a juror, Juror 50. The court finds Juror 50's testimony credible and determines that his inadvertent nondisclosure about past sexual abuse does not constitute deliberate lying to be selected for the jury. The court rejects the defendant's argument that similarities between the juror's personal history and the case issues warrant a finding of implied bias, distinguishing this situation from other legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00020972.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding the impartiality of 'Juror 50'. The Court argues that even if the juror, a victim of sexual abuse, had disclosed this during jury selection, it would not have been grounds for a 'challenge for cause'. The Court found the juror's testimony credible and affirmed that individuals with traumatic experiences can serve as fair and impartial jurors, drawing parallels to jurors in murder and fraud trials.
DOJ-OGR-00020971.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 1, 2022, discusses the jury selection process in a criminal case. It details how the Defendant chose not to challenge for cause two prospective jurors, Juror A and Juror B, despite their disclosures of personal experiences related to sexual abuse. The document contrasts their situations with that of another juror, Juror 50, and notes that all affirmed their ability to remain fair and impartial.
DOJ-OGR-00020967.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a claim of 'actual bias' against Juror 50. The Court finds Juror 50's sworn testimony to be credible, concluding that his personal history of sexual abuse would not impede his ability to be a fair and impartial juror. The Court rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) argument that the juror's assurances were 'self-serving', citing the juror's consistent and forthright demeanor during both a hearing and voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00020962.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a challenge to the credibility of a juror, identified as Juror 50. The defendant, Maxwell, argued the juror's testimony was "self-serving" and "rehearsed," and that his explanation for an incorrect answer on a questionnaire was not plausible. The Court rejects these arguments, finding the juror's preparation for testimony to be reasonable and his explanation for the questionnaire error credible, ultimately expressing satisfaction with his answers.
DOJ-OGR-00020915.jpg
This document is a court exhibit containing the 'Preliminary Instructions' for a juror questionnaire submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). It is dated March 8, 2022, and filed on March 9, 2022, specifically for 'Juror ID: 50' regarding the 'US v. Maxwell Post-verdict hearing' (Case 20cr330). The text outlines strict instructions for the juror, including the requirement for truthfulness, a ban on discussing the case, and a prohibition on conducting outside research.
DOJ-OGR-00020891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding 'Juror 50' from the 'United States v. Maxwell' case. The judge confirms with both the juror and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about his jury service. The judge also rules that the juror may continue to be referred to as 'Juror 50' to protect his anonymity, consistent with his actions in post-verdict press interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00020873.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing, filed on February 24, 2022, which contains a snippet of what appears to be a news article. The text includes a quote from an unnamed man asserting a woman's knowledge of events and states that the schedule for Maxwell's sentencing hearing has not yet been set. The document also includes tags for topics like 'Ghislaine Maxwell', 'Juror', and 'Victims'.
DOJ-OGR-00020872.jpg
This legal document excerpt details a juror's, named David, perspective on the acquittal of Maxwell on a specific charge ('count two') involving an accuser named Jane. David explains that while Jane's story was corroborated by flight logs and Epstein's 'little black book', the jury ultimately found insufficient direct evidence to prove Maxwell had 'enticed' Jane to travel, which was required for a conviction on that charge. The decision was based on a lack of evidence for that specific action, not on a disbelief of the victim.
DOJ-OGR-00020864.jpg
This document is a handwritten note dated December 27, 2021, from an unknown individual (likely a juror) to Judge Nathan during the 'US v. Maxwell' trial. The author seeks clarification on Count Four, asking if the defendant can be found guilty for aiding in the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico if the intent to engage in sexual activity was on Jane's part, not the defendant's. The note highlights a point of confusion regarding the legal elements required for a conviction on that specific charge.
| 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 |
Spending time vs Communicating
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
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.
Maxwell Reply
A reply brief filed by the Defendant, Maxwell, which raises an argument about the jury instructions.
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
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 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.
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.
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.
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
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.
Scheduling massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reconsideration of response
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity