MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
plaintiff
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial litigant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Criminal exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Abuser victim alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Accomplice |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Guiffre
|
Litigation opponent |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Social |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Victim perpetrator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Litigant judiciary |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David
|
Juror and defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Defendant and accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew A. Rohrbach
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed victim (speaker)
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Groomer victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Elizabeth
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Alleged giver recipient |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Morgan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
her counsel/lawyer
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
This Court
|
Litigant court |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Victim perpetrator implied |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion denied by District Court without an evidentiary hearing. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell argues Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are untimely. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court declines Maxwell's motion to strike surplusage at this juncture. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell moves to strike surplusage from the S1 superseding indictment, specifically allegations r... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court agrees that some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated but acknowledges defamation action re... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion for a new trial denied by District Court. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massage incident | New Mexico Ranch | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury instruction on Count Four, requiring finding that Maxwell transported Jane for sexual activity. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of the District Court's response. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell appealed the District Court's denial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court found that nothing in the NPA or its negotiation history suggested it precluded USAO-SDNY f... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cancellation of Maria's trip to New Mexico | New Mexico (intended destin... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of motion to compel immediate disclosure of Minor Victim-4's prior statements. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rule 33 Motion Ruling | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of lawsuit against Maxwell | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Offenses committed by Maxwell that were subject to motions to dismiss. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of temporary release | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flashlight checks performed on Maxwell every 15 minutes due to enhanced security schedule. | MDC | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's appeal/contention regarding the application of the NPA to her prosecution in SDNY. | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan declined to modify protective order | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defamation Action | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massage incident where Maxwell instructed Farmer to undress, performed a massage, exposed Farmer'... | The room where Farmer was s... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Travel with Epstein and Maxwell | Various (Travel) | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court denied Maxwell's motion for reconsideration. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | MAXWELL arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported multiple times from Florida to New York for... | Florida to New York | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021693.jpg
This legal document argues that a 2003 amendment to Section 3283, which extended a statute of limitations, was properly applied to Maxwell's case under the 'Landgraf' legal framework. It contends that since the original limitations period had not expired when Congress passed the amendment, the charges against Maxwell are timely. The document also cites evidence from a separate case (United States v. Rutigliano) showing that an individual named Carolyn visited Epstein's residence through 2004, establishing a relevant timeline.
DOJ-OGR-00021691.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the legal standard for retroactivity as established in the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products. It then introduces an argument from a claimant named Maxwell, who alleges that the District Court incorrectly applied a 2003 amendment to Section 3283 retroactively to her convictions on Counts Three, Four, and Six, which involved conduct predating the amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00021688.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing that the District Court was correct in ruling that the charges against Maxwell were filed in a timely manner. The brief refutes Maxwell's claim that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse does not apply to her case. The document urges the current court to uphold Judge Nathan's previous decisions to deny Maxwell's motions to dismiss.
DOJ-OGR-00021686.jpg
This page of a legal document argues against a critique by Maxwell of the 'Annabi' rule. The author contends the rule is sound, prevents defendants from receiving unintended immunity, and is supported by the Justice Manual's policy on multi-district agreements. The document concludes that the court is bound by this rule as it is an established precedent that has not been overturned.
DOJ-OGR-00021685.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023. It contains legal arguments rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's claim that a U.S. Attorney's Office in one district is bound by a plea agreement made in another, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent (San Pedro v. United States) and 28 U.S.C. § 547 regarding the limitation of a U.S. Attorney's authority to their own district. A footnote discusses and dismisses Maxwell's argument regarding an 'inter-circuit exclusionary rule.'
DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
This legal document is a filing that refutes claims made by Maxwell regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing argues that Maxwell's assertion of senior-level Justice Department approval for the NPA is a mischaracterization of the record, stating that any review by offices like the Deputy Attorney General's occurred only after the NPA was signed and in response to Epstein's actions, and did not constitute an approval of the agreement itself.
DOJ-OGR-00021678.jpg
This legal document argues that Ghislaine Maxwell cannot enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Jeffrey Epstein. The reasoning is twofold: first, Maxwell was not named as an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement, and second, the NPA's terms are explicitly limited to prosecutions brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) within that specific district, and therefore do not bar the current charges against her.
DOJ-OGR-00021675.jpg
This legal document discusses a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein that included a provision protecting potential co-conspirators, though Maxwell was not named or a party to it. Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) charged Maxwell. Her attempts to dismiss these charges based on the NPA were denied by the District Court, which concluded the NPA did not bind the USAO-SDNY.
DOJ-OGR-00021672.jpg
This legal document describes the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old minor named Melissa, who was brought by another girl, Carolyn, to provide paid sexualized massages to Epstein at his Palm Beach residence. The document then outlines the legal proceedings against Maxwell, detailing the jury's guilty verdict on December 29, 2021, and Judge Nathan's subsequent denial of Maxwell's motions for a new trial and other post-trial motions in April 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00021665.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, outlines the methods used by Maxwell and Epstein to sexually abuse young girls in a conspiracy spanning from 1994 to 2004. The scheme is described in two phases: an early phase (1994-2001) focused on grooming and isolation, and a later phase (2001-2004) involving a recruitment stream of girls paid to visit Epstein's Palm Beach residence. The document also cites expert trial testimony from Dr. Lisa Rocchio, who characterized these actions as 'textbook methods of child predators.'
DOJ-OGR-00021664.jpg
This legal document describes the close personal and financial relationship between Maxwell and Epstein over more than a decade, highlighting their shared lavish lifestyle across multiple properties. It details Maxwell's role as supervisor of Epstein's households, where she imposed strict rules on staff to create a 'culture of silence' to protect their criminal activities. A key example is her directive to a manager, Juan Alessi, on how to interact with Epstein, underscoring her authority and the secretive nature of the household operations.
DOJ-OGR-00021663.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines allegations that Maxwell and Epstein conspired to groom and sexually abuse young girls at Epstein's properties in New York, Florida, and New Mexico. It details the evidence presented at trial, which included testimony from victims and employees, flight logs, and other records. The document also specifies that Maxwell and Epstein had a close, intimate relationship starting around 1991, with Maxwell serving as his girlfriend until the early 2000s.
DOJ-OGR-00021651.jpg
This document is page iii of a table of contents from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines legal arguments concerning specific criminal counts involving sexual abuse of a child, a challenge to a legal approach by someone named Maxwell, and an appeal regarding the District Court's decision to not disqualify Juror 50 despite mistakes on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00021650.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii; file page 3 of 93) from a legal filing dated June 29, 2023, in Case 22-1426. It outlines legal arguments defending the District Court's decisions, specifically asserting that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) only binds the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and that charges against Ghislaine Maxwell were timely under statutes of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283 and § 3299).
DOJ-OGR-00021649.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines the structure of the filing, which includes the government's case detailing the alleged sexual abuse of six individuals (Jane, Kate, Annie Farmer, Virginia Roberts, Carolyn, and Melissa) and a legal argument regarding whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement bars the prosecution of Maxwell in the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021618.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains the end of a victim impact statement from Ms. Ransome, who directly addresses Maxwell, and the beginning of another statement from Ms. Stein. Ms. Stein recounts moving to New York in 1991, attending FIT, and working at Henri Bendel, where she first encountered Ghislaine Maxwell as a customer.
DOJ-OGR-00021616.jpg
This legal document is a personal statement from an unnamed victim detailing the psychological abuse and control exerted by Epstein and Maxwell. The speaker recounts how they sabotaged her application to the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), manipulated her weight through a contradictory diet and medication regimen, and created a 'no-win situation' she likens to human trafficking. The statement concludes by mentioning her escape to the U.K. in 2007 and her subsequent, ongoing struggles with severe mental health issues, including PTSD.
DOJ-OGR-00021608.jpg
This document is a victim impact statement from a legal proceeding against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 29, 2023. The speaker, a psychologist and victim, describes the long-term personal and professional harm caused by Maxwell and Epstein's sex-trafficking operation and urges Judge Nathan to consider Maxwell's continued dishonesty and the profound suffering of her victims when determining her prison sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021603.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a sentencing hearing, dated June 29, 2023. The speaker argues that the defendant, Maxwell, was a willing and crucial partner to Jeffrey Epstein, enabling his crimes to live a luxurious lifestyle funded by him. The text portrays Maxwell as a predator who viewed her victims as disposable and has shown no remorse for the lasting trauma she caused.
DOJ-OGR-00021579.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a legal argument about whether an individual named Maxwell had supervisory authority over another person named Kellen. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the judge that pilot testimony and the fact that someone was present while Kellen scheduled massage appointments is insufficient evidence to prove a supervisory role. The discussion also touches upon sentencing enhancements for sex offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00021534.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing to examine Juror 50 and other jurors. The defendant's motion was based on Juror 50's social media activity and post-trial statements, as well as a New York Times article alleging another juror had also been a victim of sexual abuse. The Court found the evidence insufficient, deemed the request a "fishing expedition," and took steps to protect juror privacy from media contact and legal inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00021172.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated June 7, 2023, from Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Rohrbach of the Southern District of New York to Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the Clerk of Court for the Second Circuit. Rohrbach formally notifies the court that he is leaving his position at the U.S. Attorney's Office and requests to be removed as counsel of record for the prosecution in the case of United States v. Maxwell (Docket No. 22-1426-cr).
DOJ-OGR-00021169.jpg
This is a legal document filed on April 26, 2023, by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew A. Rohrbach on behalf of U.S. Attorney Damian Williams. The filing notes an extension of the deadline for 'Maxwell' to file her reply brief to July 27, 2023. Rohrbach affirms the truthfulness of the document's contents under penalty of perjury.
DOJ-OGR-00021168.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the U.S. Government on April 26, 2023, in Case 22-1426. The Government requests a 30-day extension to file its response brief to a party named Maxwell, citing the need to prepare for an upcoming trial in a separate case (United States v. Wynder & Brown) starting May 22, 2023. The document notes that Maxwell's counsel, Diana Samson, does not oppose the extension, provided Maxwell also receives an extension to file her reply brief.
DOJ-OGR-00021166.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing (Case 22-1426) outlining the procedural history of Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case post-trial. It details her conviction dates, sentencing by Judge Nathan (including a $750,000 fine and concurrent prison terms), and the timeline of her appeal process, including various motions for extensions and oversized briefs filed between July 2022 and February 2023.
| 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 appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Carolyn testified that Maxwell called her to schedule sexualized massages.
Appointments
Maxwell has been on record since 2009 calling Carolyn for appointments.
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.
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.
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Civil Case Testimony
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
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'.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Minor Victim-3's life and family
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity