MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane
|
Abusive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Alleged giver recipient |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional criminal association |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Facilitator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Defendant victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional transactional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Shawn
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Criminal |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR Epstein
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JEFFREY
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Prince Andrew
|
Social |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed victim (speaker)
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Social |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Abuser victim alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial litigant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Indirect |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged conspirators |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Defendant victim |
5
|
1 |
| 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 |
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 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.
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.
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.
Culture of silence
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scheduling massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity