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 | 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-00019414.jpg
This document is a jurisdictional statement from a legal filing, arguing that the court has the authority to review a district court's decision not to modify a protective order. It asserts this jurisdiction under the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites several legal precedents to support its claim. The document outlines the three requirements for an interlocutory order to be immediately appealable under this doctrine.
DOJ-OGR-00019408.jpg
This page from a legal filing, dated September 24, 2020, discusses procedural history regarding the unsealing of documents in the Brown v. Maxwell case. It references specific denied motions by Alan Dershowitz and Michael Cernovich to modify a protective order, as well as a denied request by the Miami Herald to unseal the docket. The top half of the page is heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019392.jpg
A Notice of Defective Filing from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket 20-3061). The notice indicates that a letter submitted on behalf of the Appellant on September 23, 2020, did not comply with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) or Local Rules, though the specific reason is not checked on this page. The document lists Judge Nathan as the District Court Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00019388.jpg
This document is page 22 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It contains the conclusion of the Government's argument, signed by AUSA Maurene Comey, requesting that the Court dismiss Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny her motion to consolidate appeals regarding an Order by Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019384.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from September 16, 2020, argues that legal precedents cited by an individual named Maxwell are inapplicable to the current case. The author contends that the cited cases (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., and Brown v. Maxwell) are distinct because they all involve appeals by non-party intervenors seeking to modify protective orders, unlike the situation in the author's case. The document details these examples to demonstrate why appellate jurisdiction was appropriate in those specific instances but not in the present one.
DOJ-OGR-00019381.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Document 38, Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It argues against an immediate appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell regarding the unsealing of civil case documents. The text contends that any potential prejudice to her criminal trial (due to publicity) can be adequately addressed through a standard appeal after a final judgment, rather than an interlocutory appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019380.jpg
Page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text argues that Maxwell's attempt to appeal Judge Nathan's order regarding pretrial discovery and the unsealing of civil case documents should be denied, citing legal precedents that such orders are generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. It asserts that the risk of embarrassing information being disclosed is insufficient grounds for such an appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019373.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that an appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It cites the 'Collateral Order Doctrine' and legal precedent, such as the final judgment rule from Title 28, Section 1291 of the U.S. Code, to support the argument that appellate review is generally not permitted until a final judgment is rendered. The context is a motion filed by Maxwell on September 10, 2020, to consolidate appeals, one of which relates to the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
DOJ-OGR-00019370.jpg
This document, dated September 16, 2020, details legal proceedings involving Maxwell and the Government. It discusses Maxwell's motion to modify protective orders and the Government's opposition, which revealed a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-conspirators. The Government issued subpoenas to a 'Recipient' and applied ex parte in February 2019 to modify protective orders to ensure compliance with these subpoenas, without notifying Maxwell or her counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00019365.jpg
This is the conclusion page (page 22 internal, page 23 of PDF) of a legal filing submitted by Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey on September 16, 2020. The Government argues that Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, her motion to consolidate appeals should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00019364.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion from a defendant named Maxwell to consolidate her criminal and civil appeals. The Government asserts that Maxwell's motion is a strategic attempt to circumvent an order by Judge Nathan that restricts the use of criminal discovery materials in her civil litigation. The filing warns that consolidating the cases would effectively reverse the judge's order without a proper appeal and raises concerns about disseminating sensitive, sealed criminal documents to civil litigants.
DOJ-OGR-00019362.jpg
This legal document argues that an appeal by Maxwell should be dismissed because the order in question is not subject to interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. It further argues that Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal case appeal with a separate civil case appeal (Giuffre v. Maxwell) should be denied because the two cases are factually and legally distinct, and the Government has no involvement or interest in the civil matter.
DOJ-OGR-00019358.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against Maxwell's complaint regarding the unsealing of civil case filings. The author contends that any resulting unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case is not a matter for immediate appeal, but rather an issue that can be reviewed and remedied after a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including Hitchcock, Mohawk Indus., United States v. Sabhnani, and United States v. Elfgeeh, to support the position that post-judgment appeals are the proper venue to address concerns of publicity-biased juries.
DOJ-OGR-00019357.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against an interlocutory appeal sought by a party named Maxwell. The author contends that Maxwell's reasons for appeal, related to pretrial discovery and the potential unsealing of documents, do not meet the high legal threshold for an appeal before a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including cases like *United States v. Martoma* and *United States v. Guerrero*, to support its position that the issues are not significant enough to warrant immediate review.
DOJ-OGR-00019356.jpg
This page from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, dated Sept 16, 2020) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The text contends that Judge Nathan's refusal to modify a Protective Order is not an 'immediately appealable collateral order' and does not fall under categories allowing prejudgment appeals in criminal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019350.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that an appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It cites the 'final judgment rule' from Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which generally prohibits appeals until a final decision is made on the merits of a case. The filing emphasizes that this policy against 'piecemeal' appeals is particularly strong in criminal law, referencing several Supreme Court precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00019349.jpg
This legal document from September 16, 2020, outlines recent court proceedings involving a litigant named Maxwell and Judge Nathan. On September 2, 2020, Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motion, criticizing it as vague and lacking a "coherent explanation" for why criminal discovery materials were needed for her civil cases. Despite the denial, Maxwell was permitted to share some information under seal, and she subsequently filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019346.jpg
This legal document, dated September 16, 2020, outlines key procedural events in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It details a protective order issued on July 30, 2020, which restricts the use of discovery materials, and a subsequent motion filed by Maxwell on August 17, 2020, to modify that order. The document also notes that Maxwell's pretrial motions are due December 21, 2020, and the trial is scheduled to begin on July 12, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00019345.jpg
This document is a 'Statement of Facts' from a legal filing dated September 16, 2020, concerning the case against Maxwell. It outlines the timeline of events in mid-2020, including the filing of a sealed indictment on June 29, Maxwell's arrest on July 2, and the filing of a superseding indictment on July 8 in the Southern District of New York. The document specifies the six counts Maxwell is charged with, all related to the enticement and transportation of minors for illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00019339.jpg
This is a legal notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated September 15, 2020, regarding the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket # 20-3061). The document officially announces that the case manager assigned to the matter has been changed. It provides a phone number for any inquiries related to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019318.jpg
This legal document, dated May 18, 2020, is a filing arguing against defendant Maxwell's request to stay discovery in a civil case. The author contends that Maxwell has failed to justify the stay based on a parallel criminal investigation and that a potential claims resolution program involving co-defendant Epstein's Estate does not require litigation to be paused. The filing cites court transcripts and case law to support the position that discovery should proceed, as it may even be necessary to facilitate settlement.
DOJ-OGR-00019244.jpg
This document is a UPS Next Day Air shipping label for a package sent by Renee McReynolds of the law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P. in Denver, CO. The package, filed on September 4, 2020, was addressed to the Clerk of Court at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in New York City. The shipment's reference line indicates it pertains to the legal case 'Maxwell 20 cr. 330 (AJN)'.
DOJ-OGR-00019243.jpg
This document is a letter dated September 3, 2020, from Nicole Simmons of the law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. to the Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York. The letter serves as a cover for a 'Notice of Appeal' being filed in the case of 'US v. Maxwell' (Case No. 20 cr. 330). It also confirms the enclosure of a check for $505.00 to cover docketing and processing fees.
DOJ-OGR-00019218.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on July 2, 2020. It details specific allegations of abuse, including Maxwell providing a massage to "Minor Victim-2" in 1996 and encouraging "Minor Victim-3" to massage Epstein between 1994-1995 with knowledge of his abusive intent. The document also outlines Count Four, charging Maxwell with the transportation of a minor for criminal sexual activity between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00019215.jpg
This page from a legal indictment, filed on July 2, 2020, details several allegations against an individual named MAXWELL. The charges state that between 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL, in concert with Epstein, engaged in sexual abuse of three minors (Minor Victim-1, -2, and -3) across multiple locations including New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London. The specific allegations include participating in group sexual encounters, enticing a minor to travel for sexual abuse, and facilitating sexual abuse by encouraging a minor to provide massages to Epstein.
| 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 |
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.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
Request to question Juror 50
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
Maxwell Reply
A reply brief filed by the Defendant, Maxwell, which raises an argument about the jury instructions.
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'.
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.
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.
Interaction with Epstein
Maxwell directed Juan Alessi to speak to Epstein only when spoken to and not to look him in the eyes.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity