MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane
|
Perpetrator victim |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Abuser victim |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
location
USA
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Abuser victim |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Accomplices |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror defendant |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The District Court
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Defendant juror |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Perpetrator victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Abuser victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Acquaintance |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Perpetrator victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Acquaintance |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Groomer victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Sarah Kellen
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 |
| 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-00020823.jpg
This is a court order dated August 13, 2021, from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order denies a motion from an individual named Maxwell seeking relief related to the S2 indictment, referencing a prior Opinion & Order from April 16, 2021 as part of the basis for the decision.
DOJ-OGR-00020821.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling denying motions filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The court denies her motion for a bill of particulars, which sought more specific dates for alleged sex trafficking crimes, ruling that the indictment's four-year timeframe (2001-2004) is sufficient. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to compel immediate disclosure of a Minor Victim's prior statements, finding the current disclosure schedule adequate.
DOJ-OGR-00020818.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses the court's reasoning for why the sex trafficking charges against Maxwell are not time-barred. The court argues that U.S. Code § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, citing several other district court decisions. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to dismiss certain counts as multiplicitous, concluding that such a motion is premature at the pretrial stage.
DOJ-OGR-00020817.jpg
This document is a court order from Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023, denying a motion filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The Court reaffirms its prior April 16, 2021 ruling, concluding that the statutes of limitations for sex trafficking of a minor (§ 3283 and § 3299) apply retroactively to her alleged conduct. The Court holds that this allows the prosecution to proceed on counts related to offenses committed before the statutes were enacted.
DOJ-OGR-00020816.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, details an argument by the defendant, Maxwell, that charges of Sex Trafficking Conspiracy and Sex Trafficking are time-barred under the general five-year statute of limitations. The document outlines the history of relevant legislation, including the PROTECT Act of 2003 and 18 U.S.C. § 3299, which extended or eliminated limitations for such crimes. Maxwell contends these extensions do not apply to her specific charges, renewing a previously argued position, because the alleged conduct occurred between 2001 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00020813.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. The court rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's arguments that the *Commonwealth v. Cosby* decision or the *Annabi* precedent should prevent her prosecution. The court rules that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from one district does not bind another district in this context, distinguishing her situation from Bill Cosby's case where a specific promise not to prosecute was made by a district attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00020791.jpg
This legal document is a court order addressing a discovery request from the defendant, Maxwell, concerning evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Court considers the Government's proposal to disclose this evidence 45 days before trial to be reasonable and denies Maxwell's request for earlier disclosure. However, the Court encourages the parties to negotiate a final schedule and concludes that disclosure six to eight weeks before trial would be appropriate.
DOJ-OGR-00020790.jpg
This document is page 31 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court discusses the timeline for the Government to produce a witness list, noting that while Maxwell faces challenges due to the 'decades-old allegations,' the Government's proposal to provide information six weeks in advance is reasonable. The text also notes that on April 13, 2021, the Government produced over 20,000 pages of discovery materials related to non-testifying witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00020789.jpg
This page is from a court order in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court addresses discovery disputes, specifically ruling that the Government's agreement to produce 'Giglio' and 'Jencks Act' materials six weeks prior to trial is sufficient for Maxwell to prepare, noting the Court lacks authority to force earlier disclosure of Jencks material. The Court also denies Maxwell's request for a pretrial hearing regarding the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, opting instead for conditional admission at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020788.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling on requests made by a party named Maxwell for the immediate disclosure of specific materials from the Government. The requested items include witness interviews, FBI reports, diary pages, and subpoenas. The Court denies Maxwell's requests, reasoning that the Government has affirmed its compliance with its disclosure obligations (under Brady and Giglio), some materials are protected by the Jencks Act, some are not in the Government's possession, and other requests are overly broad.
DOJ-OGR-00020782.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 16, 2021. The court concludes that perjury charges against the defendant, Maxwell, are legally tenable and can be presented to a jury. However, the court rules that these perjury charges must be severed and tried separately from the Mann Act counts to avoid undue prejudice to the defendant, citing potential issues with admitting evidence of other acts and the risk of disqualifying Maxwell's chosen counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00020781.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court ruling (Document 207) filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Maxwell. The court is denying Maxwell's motion to dismiss perjury counts, arguing that the ambiguity of questions and the materiality of her statements are issues of fact for a jury to decide, not grounds for pretrial dismissal. The text cites legal precedents regarding perjury, materiality in civil depositions, and the role of the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00020779.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in the case against Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The court addresses and rejects several of Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is impermissibly vague, specifically concerning the lack of precise dates for the alleged abuse, the inclusion of noncriminal conduct, and the omission of victims' names. The court cites legal precedents to affirm that the indictment is sufficient, particularly in cases involving the sexual abuse of children where victims may struggle to recall exact dates.
DOJ-OGR-00020778.jpg
This legal document is a court filing addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss charges from an indictment, specifically the Mann Act counts, arguing they lack specificity. The Court denies the motion, concluding that the S1 superseding indictment is sufficiently clear under established legal precedent, which only requires tracking the statutory language and providing the time and place in approximate terms. The Court rejects Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is too vague regarding time periods, conduct described, and the identification of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00020776.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss an indictment based on pre-indictment delay. Maxwell argues the delay prejudiced her defense because potential witnesses, including Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, have died. The court rejects this argument, finding no evidence of improper government purpose for the delay and concluding that Maxwell's claims about what deceased witnesses might have testified are too speculative to meet the high standard required for dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00020775.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes whether a statute can be retroactively applied to prosecute the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that applying the PROTECT Act does not have impermissible retroactive effects because it did not deprive Maxwell of any vested rights, as the original statute of limitations had not expired when the Act was passed. The document also dismisses Maxwell's fairness argument as a policy disagreement with Congress and affirms that the government's delay in bringing charges did not violate due process, citing the statute of limitations as the primary safeguard against stale charges.
DOJ-OGR-00020774.jpg
This legal document argues that the PROTECT Act's statute of limitations applies to Maxwell's past conduct. It counters Maxwell's argument by explaining that Congress removed an express retroactivity provision from the bill due to constitutional concerns raised by figures like Senator Leahy, not to prevent its application to cases where the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
DOJ-OGR-00020772.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order (filed April 16, 2021) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's rejection of Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations, specifically concerning the 2003 PROTECT Act and retroactive application of laws to past conduct. The legal analysis relies on precedents such as 'Weingarten' and 'Landgraf'.
DOJ-OGR-00020771.jpg
This legal document analyzes the application of the § 3283 statute of limitations, particularly in cases involving child sex abuse and war frauds. It examines arguments made by 'Maxwell' and contrasts interpretations from Supreme Court cases like *Bridges v. United States* with those from the Second Circuit in *Weingarten* and the PROTECT Act. The document concludes that the legislative history and plain meaning of the statute support a broader application rather than a narrow one.
DOJ-OGR-00020769.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in a criminal case against an individual named Maxwell. The court analyzes and ultimately rejects Maxwell's argument that a 'categorical approach' should be used to interpret the statutes related to the charges. The court relies on precedent from the Second and Third Circuits, particularly the reasoning in *Weingarten v. United States*, to conclude that the categorical approach is not applicable in this context.
DOJ-OGR-00020767.jpg
This legal document is a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 16, 2021, denying a request by the defendant, Maxwell, for an evidentiary hearing. The Court rules that a hearing is unnecessary because the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in question is clear and in writing, unlike cases involving ambiguous oral agreements. The Court also orders the Government to confirm within one week its disclosure of any evidence that might support Maxwell's interpretation of the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00020763.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Citing Second Circuit precedent, particularly United States v. Annabi, the filing asserts that such agreements are limited to the district in which they are made unless they explicitly state a broader scope. The document refutes an opposing argument from an individual named Maxwell, stating the NPA lacks the necessary language to apply to other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00020761.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court summarizes its rulings, denying Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges based on Epstein's Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement, untimeliness, vagueness, and grand jury venue issues. However, the Court grants Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury counts, ruling they will be tried separately from the sex trafficking/Mann Act charges.
DOJ-OGR-00020754.jpg
This document is a page from a legal indictment, filed on March 29, 2021, detailing charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. It alleges that between 2001 and 2004, Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or his employees arranged for "Minor Victim-4" to provide massages for Epstein. The page also outlines COUNT SIX, charging Maxwell with Sex Trafficking of a Minor for recruiting and transporting a person under 18 for commercial sex acts in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere during the same period.
DOJ-OGR-00020753.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 29, 2021, outlines overt acts in a conspiracy case against Epstein and Maxwell. It alleges that between 2001 and 2004, they recruited a minor, referred to as Minor Victim-4, for sex acts with Epstein at his Palm Beach residence, paid her cash, and encouraged her to recruit other girls. The document also states that gifts were sent from the Southern District of New York to the victim's residence by Epstein's employees, including Maxwell.
| 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