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-00002265(1).jpg
This document is a screenshot of a webpage from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) website, captured on January 4, 2021. It was filed as an exhibit in a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) on January 13, 2021. The page provides links to official U.S. government resources for COVID-19 information, including Coronavirus.gov, CDC.gov, and USA.gov, and mentions the White House Coronavirus Task Force.
DOJ-OGR-00002264.jpg
This document is a court-filed screenshot of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) webpage, filed on January 13, 2021, as part of the case 'US v Maxwell'. The webpage details the BOP's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including its modified operations plan, emergency response protocols, and collaboration efforts with agencies like the Public Health Service (PHS) and NIC to ensure the safety of staff and inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00001833.jpg
This document is a page from a government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, outlining the charges in the indictment and discussing the production of discovery materials. The government argues for the delayed disclosure of certain sensitive materials related to Epstein victims not testifying at trial to protect ongoing investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00001826.jpg
This document discusses a legal appeal by 'Maxwell' concerning the denial of her motion to modify a protective order and her request for a writ of mandamus to the District Court. The court declines to exercise jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal, also denying her request for a writ of mandamus and her motions to consolidate her criminal appeal with a civil appeal involving Guiffre v. Maxwell, citing lack of common identity between the appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00001780.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Document 60) in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on October 6, 2020. It details the specific charges against Maxwell (enticement, conspiracy, transport of minors, perjury) focused on the 1994-1997 timeframe, while discussing the production of discovery materials related to a broader investigation of Epstein's abuse post-1997. The Government argues for the delayed disclosure of specific 'Materials' (approx. 40 photos and 40 pages of documents) to protect the identities of non-testifying victims and to avoid interfering with ongoing investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00030575.jpg
This document is Page 28 (labeled 108 of 131 in the full production) of a word index/concordance for a legal deposition or transcript related to the Epstein case. It lists words alphabetically from 'EXAMINATION' to 'Murrell' alongside the page and line numbers where they appear in the source text. Key terms indexed include 'Jeffrey', 'Maxwell', 'massage', 'masseuses', 'girls', 'girlfriend', 'Florida', and 'island'.
DOJ-OGR-00021901.jpg
This legal document, page 24 of a court filing dated December 2, 2024, discusses the legal standards for reviewing a court sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness. It specifically addresses a finding by the District Court that Maxwell supervised her assistant, Sarah Kellen, which was based on testimony from two of Epstein's pilots. This testimony was deemed credible and corroborated by other testimony describing Maxwell as Epstein's 'number two and the lady of the house' in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00021900.jpg
This legal document page addresses two arguments from the defendant, Maxwell. First, it refutes her claim of 'substantial prejudice' from evidence of her conduct in New Mexico, noting she received the evidence weeks before trial. Second, it introduces Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable due to a leadership enhancement, an argument the court states it will disagree with.
DOJ-OGR-00021899.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a larger filing, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to define the high standard for proving such a variance, asserting that the defendant was not misled and their rights were not violated. The document concludes that, similar to a previous argument about constructive amendment, the evidence at trial did not prove facts outside the scope of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021895.jpg
This legal document, page 18 of a court filing dated December 2, 2024, discusses the District Court's denial of a Rule 33 motion for a new trial. The motion was based on an allegedly erroneous answer given by 'Juror 50' during voir dire. The document explains that the court applied the standard from 'McDonough v. Greenwood', finding the juror's testimony credible and his response not deliberately incorrect, and also noting that the defendant, Maxwell, had not challenged other jurors with similar backgrounds.
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
This document is a legal opinion discussing the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial. Maxwell argued she was deprived of a fair trial because Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The document reviews the standard for abuse of discretion in denying such motions, emphasizing that new trials are granted sparingly and only under extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021893.jpg
This legal document argues that the 2003 amendment to federal statute § 3283, enacted as part of the PROTECT Act, applies retroactively. The document asserts that the clear text of the amendment, which eliminates the statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses, shows Congress's intent to cover past conduct, and therefore applies to Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021892.jpg
This legal document, part of an appellate court opinion, addresses arguments made by a defendant named Maxwell. The court rejects a 'categorical approach' for determining if offenses involved sexual abuse, citing testimony from a victim, 'Jane', about being abused as a minor across state lines. The document then introduces Maxwell's second argument: that certain counts are barred by the statute of limitations because a 2003 amendment to § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
DOJ-OGR-00021885.jpg
This legal document details the post-trial proceedings for a defendant named Maxwell. After the Government requested a hearing regarding a juror's inaccurate questionnaire answers, Maxwell moved for a new trial. The District Court held a hearing where Juror 50 testified his inaccurate answers about past experiences with sexual abuse were an inadvertent mistake; the court found him credible, denied Maxwell's motion, and subsequently sentenced her to 240 months in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00021883.jpg
This page discusses the legal proceedings involving Epstein and Maxwell, detailing Epstein's plea agreement and the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) protecting his co-conspirators. It outlines the indictment against Maxwell, which included eight counts, and provides footnotes referencing specific Florida statutes and federal charges related to sex trafficking and conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00021881.jpg
This document is page 4 of an appellate court decision (likely 2nd Circuit) dated December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction and sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida did not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell. Additionally, the court affirms that the indictment was within the statute of limitations and that the District Court correctly denied a motion for a new trial regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021873.jpg
This document is a legal opinion from an appellate court, filed on October 20, 2022, which summarizes its reasons for affirming a lower District Court's judgment of conviction against Maxwell. The court found no error in the lower court's rulings, including that Epstein's non-prosecution agreement did not prevent Maxwell's prosecution and that her conviction and sentence were sound.
DOJ-OGR-00021872.jpg
This page from a legal document, likely an appellate court opinion, affirms a lower court's decision. It concludes that the District Court did not make a legal error by applying a 'leadership enhancement' in a case involving someone named Kellen. It also upholds the sentence given to Ms. Maxwell, stating the District Court properly justified the sentence's length by citing her 'pivotal role' in abusing underage girls and the gravity of her offense.
DOJ-OGR-00021871.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standards for reviewing a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness. It specifically addresses a sentencing enhancement for Maxwell, arguing that the District Court correctly found she had a leadership role based on testimony from two of Epstein's pilots. The pilots testified that Sarah Kellen was Maxwell's assistant, which was corroborated by other testimony describing Maxwell as Epstein's "number two and the lady of the house" in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00021869.jpg
This page is from a legal document (likely an appellate brief or opinion) stamped September 17, 2024, discussing the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that there was no prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that Maxwell was properly convicted of conduct charged by the grand jury. It cites several Second Circuit precedents to support the standard for legal variance and prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00021867.jpg
This page is from a legal opinion (likely the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, given the citations) affirming a District Court's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion. Maxwell argued that testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico constituted a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' from the original indictment, violating the Fifth Amendment. The court reviews the denial *de novo* and rejects Maxwell's argument.
DOJ-OGR-00021866.jpg
This legal document details the District Court's handling of a jury note during the trial of Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in the victim Jane's return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too difficult to 'parse factually and legally,' and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions for that count.
DOJ-OGR-00021865.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) discusses a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' alleged erroneous responses during jury selection (voir dire). The text argues that the District Court correctly applied the 'McDonough' standard, finding the juror's errors were not deliberate and that accurate answers would not have led to a dismissal for cause. It also notes that Ghislaine Maxwell did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed histories of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00021860.jpg
This legal document argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts, a principle established since 1789. It contends 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 Maxwell. The document cites legal precedent ('Annabi') and statutory exceptions, such as the Attorney General's power to direct attorneys to act in other districts, to support its position.
DOJ-OGR-00021856.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court affirms a lower District Court's decision, ruling that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) does not prevent the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The court holds that such agreements are generally limited to the specific district in which they are made.
| 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