MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Minor Victim-2
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Facilitator |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Employees
|
Employee |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Victim abuser |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Unspecified |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Conspiratorial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Recruiter victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Ownership |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Guiffre
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
["her attorneys"]
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional conspiratorial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Elizabeth
|
Defendant victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Defendant victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Facilitator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sarah Kellen
|
Supervisory professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged conspirators |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Unclear |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Indirect |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional criminal association |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Co-Executors
|
Allied in motion |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The 'Doe case' was stayed to avoid adversely affecting an ongoing criminal prosecution against Ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A witness (A. Farmer) stayed at a ranch with Epstein and Maxwell. | the ranch | View |
| N/A | Conversation | Kate and Maxwell discussed Kate's family situation, including her mother's illness. | Maxwell's townhouse | View |
| N/A | Conversation | Kate and Maxwell discussed Kate's future plans, including her offer to study law at Oxford Univer... | Maxwell's townhouse | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell lied under oath during a civil deposition to conceal her crimes, specifically regarding h... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | A Superseding Indictment (S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)) was filed, charging Maxwell with eight counts, inc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defendant met victim and asked her to give massages. | The house | View |
| N/A | Trial | A four-and-a-half-week jury trial was held where the Government presented evidence of sexual abus... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan entered a 'challenged Order' denying Maxwell's request to use criminal discovery mat... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Maxwell filed a motion to modify a Protective Order and subsequently appealed the denial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The Government charged Maxwell with perjury in connection with civil cases. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Maxwell and Mr. Epstein would be "out of town and be flying in" when appointments were scheduled ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, where this summation was delivered. | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| N/A | Scheduling | Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages. This is related to counts Five and Six. | New York | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An appeal by Maxwell regarding an Order to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A pending criminal case involving the parties. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Trip | The narrator visited Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. | private island in the U.S. ... | View |
| N/A | Abuse | The narrator was subjected to sexual predation multiple times per day over a period of seven to e... | New York mansion and privat... | View |
| N/A | Crime | Maxwell transported Jane to New York for sexual abuse and conspired to do the same. | New York | View |
| N/A | Trial | Maxwell's criminal trial, for which she received evidence (notes of Jane's interview) over three ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | The District Court sentenced Maxwell to 240 months' imprisonment, which was slightly above the Gu... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Crime | Epstein and the Defendant (Maxwell) groomed victims for abuse at various properties and in variou... | various properties and in v... | View |
| N/A | Attempted college application | The author wrote an application to FIT, which was controlled and ultimately never submitted by Ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | A court holds that the District Court did not err in applying a leadership enhancement or in expl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Interview | Upon her arrest, the defendant was interviewed by Pretrial Services and allegedly lied about her ... | 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 |
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.
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 appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
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.
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
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 sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
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.
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.
Civil Case Testimony
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
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.
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.
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
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.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
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'.
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'.
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.
Scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein
Carolyn named Maxwell as one of two people who would call her to schedule massages with Jeffrey Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity