MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged co conspirators |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Victim perpetrator alleged |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
TODD BLANCHE
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Association |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Exploitative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kellen
|
Employee |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional conspiratorial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
victims
|
Criminal |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Perpetrator victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Denied association |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged co conspirators |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator potential |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Scotty
|
Juror defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
USAO-SDNY
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Farmer
|
Victim perpetrator |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional criminal |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Subjects of investigation |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Criminal association |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators alleged |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Guiffre
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| 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-00021854.jpg
This legal document page describes the conclusion of a criminal trial where the defendant, Maxwell, was found guilty on December 29, 2021, on multiple counts related to sexual abuse. The document highlights a post-verdict issue concerning Juror 50, who revealed in press interviews that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse, contradicting his 'no' answers to related questions on his pre-trial jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00021853.jpg
This legal document page outlines the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein, in which the United States agreed not to prosecute potential co-conspirators, specifically naming Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. The document then introduces the indictment against Maxwell, detailing the multiple federal charges she faced, including conspiracy, enticement of a minor, and sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00021833.jpg
This legal document page outlines the timeline of legal actions involving Epstein and Maxwell following Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It details Epstein's 2019 indictment and death, followed by Maxwell's indictment and a subsequent superseding indictment by the SDNY in 2021. The core of the text describes Maxwell's unsuccessful motion to dismiss her indictment by leveraging the language of Epstein's NPA, a motion which the District Court denied.
DOJ-OGR-00021828.jpg
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, in Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including a 2024 Second Circuit decision in *U.S. v. Maxwell*, along with citations to other federal cases such as *U.S. v. Papa* and *U.S. v. Persico*. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00021822.jpg
This document is a blank 'Verified Itemized Bill of Costs' form filed on September 17, 2024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The form is intended for a party to request the Clerk of Court to prepare an itemized statement of costs, such as docketing and printing fees, to be taxed against the opposing party.
DOJ-OGR-00021821.jpg
This document, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on September 17, 2024, provides detailed instructions for filing a bill of costs in the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket # 22-1426cr). It outlines the procedural requirements under FRAP 39, including a 14-day filing deadline after judgment, verification, service on adversaries, and specific rules regarding allowable charges and documentation for printing costs.
DOJ-OGR-00021820.jpg
This document is a legal ruling from an appellate court, dated September 17, 2024, which affirms the conviction of Maxwell. The court rejects several grounds for appeal, including that Epstein's prior non-prosecution agreement should have barred her prosecution and that her indictment was outside the statute of limitations. The ruling upholds the District Court's judgment of conviction from June 29, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00021817.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, addresses Ghislaine Maxwell's claims that her trial was unfair and her sentence unreasonable. The court rejects her argument that evidence of her conduct in New Mexico was prejudicial, noting the evidence was disclosed weeks before trial. The document also affirms that her 240-month sentence, which included a leadership enhancement, was procedurally reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a filing dated September 17, 2024, 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 establish the high standard required to prove such a variance and resulting prejudice. The document concludes that the evidence at trial did not prove facts different from those in the indictment, thereby refuting the defendant's claim.
DOJ-OGR-00021812.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standard for granting a new trial based on a juror's incorrect answers during voir dire, referencing the precedent set in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. The District Court found that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberate and would not have resulted in being struck for cause. The document also notes that the party, Maxwell, did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed experiences with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment.
DOJ-OGR-00021811.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It addresses an appeal argument by Ghislaine Maxwell, who contends she deserves a new trial because 'Juror 50' failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text outlines the legal standard of 'abuse of discretion' and cites precedents indicating that courts are reluctant to investigate jurors post-verdict and grant new trials only in extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021810.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It argues that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (via the PROTECT Act) regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse offenses was intended by Congress to apply retroactively. The document specifically asserts that this amendment applies to Ghislaine Maxwell's conduct as charged in her indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021809.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses two key arguments. First, it affirms that charges involving the sexual abuse of a minor ("Jane") transported across state lines fall under § 3283. Second, it addresses an argument by Maxwell that certain counts are time-barred because a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations in § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court's test in 'Landgraf v. USI Film Products'.
DOJ-OGR-00021808.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court is analyzing whether the indictment against Maxwell was timely, concluding that the District Court correctly denied her motion to dismiss. The opinion focuses on the application of the extended statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021807.jpg
This legal document argues that the authority of U.S. Attorneys is statutorily limited to their specific federal districts, unless directed otherwise by the Attorney General. It applies this principle to a case involving Maxwell, suggesting that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not need to explicitly prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting, as their jurisdiction was already confined. The argument is supported by citations to U.S. Code and the legal precedent of 'Annabi'.
DOJ-OGR-00021804.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein does not prevent the prosecution of Maxwell by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The document asserts that the NPA's scope was explicitly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts. It cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Annabi, to support the conclusion that Maxwell's prosecution can proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00021803.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court addresses Maxwell's argument that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) immunized her from prosecution. The court rejects this claim, holding that the NPA made by the Florida office does not legally bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY), which brought the charges against her.
DOJ-OGR-00021802.jpg
This legal document details post-trial proceedings in the case of an individual named Maxwell. Following the discovery of interviews, the Government requested a hearing regarding Juror 50, who admitted to providing inaccurate answers on a jury questionnaire but claimed it was an inadvertent mistake. The District Court found the juror's testimony credible, denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial, and subsequently sentenced Maxwell to 240 months in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00021801.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, detailing the procedural history of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It describes the jury selection process, the guilty verdict delivered on December 29, 2021, and a specific controversy regarding 'Juror 50,' who publicly disclosed being a sexual abuse survivor after the trial despite denying victimization on the jury questionnaire. Footnotes clarify the specific legal counts Maxwell was convicted on (sex trafficking, etc.) and those acquitted or dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00021798.jpg
This document, a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses an appeal related to Maxwell's prosecution. It addresses five key questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution by the USAO-SDNY, the compliance of Maxwell's March 29, 2021 indictment with the statute of limitations, and the District Court's discretion in denying a new trial and its response to a jury note. The document concludes that Epstein's NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution, her indictment complied with limitations, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00021788.jpg
This document is a Revised Notice of Hearing Date from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket # 22-1426cr). The notice, dated February 29, 2024, schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, allotting 10 minutes per side for arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00021782.jpg
This is a 'Notice of Hearing Date' from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the appeal case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The document schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 10:00 am at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, allotting 10 minutes per side. It provides instructions regarding in-person vs. remote attendance, health protocols, and procedures for withdrawing motions.
DOJ-OGR-00021779.jpg
This document is a Notice of Hearing Date from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket 22-1426cr). It schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 10:00 am at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City. The notice outlines procedural rules regarding attendance, time allotment (10 minutes per side), and protocols for motions to withdraw.
DOJ-OGR-00021778.jpg
This is a legal notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated December 11, 2023, regarding the case of 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The document formally announces that the case manager assigned to this legal matter has been changed. It provides a phone number for any inquiries related to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021771.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023. It argues that 'Juror 50' should have been excluded from the Maxwell case due to implied bias, specifically citing the 'average person test' and the juror's failure to disclose victimization during voir dire. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Smith v. Phillips, U.S. v. Burr) to support the claim that nondisclosure of sexual abuse victimization deprives the court of vital information.
| 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 |
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.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Carolyn testified that Maxwell called her to schedule sexualized massages.
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'.
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.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
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.
Appointments
Maxwell has been on record since 2009 calling Carolyn for appointments.
Taking over the house
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
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'.
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.
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 massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
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.
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.
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
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.
Civil Case Testimony
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
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.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity