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-00019770.jpg
This is a formal court notice from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated March 29, 2021. It confirms that the 'Record on Appeal - Electronic Index' has been filed in the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket #: 21-770), originating from the SDNY under Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019744.jpg
This is a docketing notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated March 29, 2021, for the case of "United States of America v. Maxwell". The notice confirms that an appeal has been filed and assigned the docket number 21-770. It instructs the parties' counsel on the procedures for filing a Notice of Appearance and for maintaining correct contact information with the court.
DOJ-OGR-00019715.jpg
This is a legal notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated January 12, 2021, for the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket # 21-58). The document confirms that the "Record on Appeal - Electronic Index" has been officially filed with the court. The notice is issued under the authority of Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston and Clerk of Court Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe.
DOJ-OGR-00019692.jpg
This is a docketing notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated January 12, 2021, concerning the case of "United States of America v. Maxwell" (Docket # 21-58). The document officially notifies the parties that an appeal has been filed and outlines the procedural requirements for counsel, such as filing a Notice of Appearance and ensuring contact information is kept current with the court. It specifies that case documents are available via PACER for counseled cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019691.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated November 9, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The court dismisses the appeal filed by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell, finding the arguments to be without merit. The court also denies a motion to consolidate as moot.
DOJ-OGR-00019687.jpg
This is a legal notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020, regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 20-3061cr). The document formally announces that the case manager assigned to the matter has been changed and provides a phone number for any related inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00019686.jpg
This legal document is the final page of a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020. The court dismisses an appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell, citing a lack of merit in her arguments, and also denies a motion to consolidate as moot. The order is signed by the Clerk of the Court, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe.
DOJ-OGR-00019685.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order dated October 19, 2020, from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Case 20-3061. The court dismisses Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of a District Court's denial to modify a protective order, ruling it lacks jurisdiction because the order is not immediately appealable. The court also declines to issue a writ of mandamus and denies Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case Guiffre v. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019681.jpg
This document is a 'Bill of Costs Instructions' sheet from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020. It relates to the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket #: 20-3061cr) and outlines the procedural requirements for filing a bill of costs under FRAP 39. The document lists the presiding judges (Chief Judge Livingston and DC Judge Nathan) and provides specific rules regarding filing deadlines, verification, service, and allowable printing charges.
DOJ-OGR-00019680.jpg
This legal document, dated October 19, 2020, is a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Case 20-3061. The court dismisses an appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell concerning an unsealing order, finding her arguments to be without merit. The court also denies a motion to consolidate as moot.
DOJ-OGR-00019679.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order dated October 19, 2020, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order. The court rules it lacks jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order, denies her request for a writ of mandamus finding no abuse of discretion by the District Court, and denies her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case *Guiffre v. Maxwell*.
DOJ-OGR-00019666.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has taken contradictory positions by intervening in one case (Doe v. Indyke) but not another (Giuffre v. Maxwell). The author contends the government's justification is weak and ignores its own arguments for strict confidentiality in a related criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, suggesting the government should logically oppose unsealing filings in the Giuffre case but has failed to do so without explanation.
DOJ-OGR-00019660.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020. It argues that the government fails to acknowledge that Ms. Maxwell is prohibited by a protective order (upheld by Judge Nathan) from disclosing specific details. These prohibited disclosures include the identity of a 'Recipient,' materials obtained by the government, details about the bulk of the case against her, and why 'Court-2' declined a government request; all specific details regarding these points are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019642.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that Judge Nathan acted within her discretion by denying Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. The filing asserts Maxwell provided no good cause to use criminal discovery materials in a civil case. It contrasts this with the 'Doe case,' which was stayed due to its potential interference with the criminal prosecution, a concern the document claims is not present in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case.
DOJ-OGR-00019641.jpg
This legal document discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that unsealing materials from a past civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) would prejudice her current criminal trial. The author refutes this by contrasting her resolved 2017 civil case with another, active case (Doe v. Indyke), arguing the procedural differences justify the Government's different actions in each. The document concludes that unsealing documents in the Giuffre case poses no risk to the Government's criminal case as discovery is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00019638.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, critiques Ghislaine Maxwell's arguments for keeping criminal discovery materials sealed in her civil cases. The author contends that Maxwell has failed to provide a coherent legal basis for her request and did not adequately explain the relevance of the materials to Judge Nathan. Maxwell's concern is that unsealing the deposition material could prevent her from making future arguments to Judge Nathan regarding alleged government misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
This document is page 24 (PDF page 30) of a legal brief filed by the Government on October 2, 2020. It argues that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion in denying Maxwell's request to modify a Protective Order. The text asserts that Maxwell failed to explain why criminal discovery materials were necessary for pending civil litigation or relevant to First Amendment issues regarding public docketing.
DOJ-OGR-00019636.jpg
This legal document, page 23 of a court filing dated October 2, 2020, argues that Judge Nathan correctly denied a motion by Maxwell. Maxwell sought to use discovery materials from her criminal case in a separate civil litigation, but the judge found her reasons to be "vague, speculative, and conclusory." The document notes that Maxwell had previously consented to a Protective Order prohibiting this and that she was aware the Government had charged her with perjury related to civil cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a brief or opinion, dated October 2, 2020. It argues against allowing an immediate, or interlocutory, appeal from a person named Maxwell regarding a Protective Order. The text cites several legal precedents (Mohawk, Pappas, Van Cauwenberghe) to support the position that such orders are not appealable until after a final judgment is rendered in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017245.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, outlines allegations of overt acts in a conspiracy case. It describes how between 2001 and 2004, Epstein's employees sent gifts, including lingerie, to a woman named Carolyn and that Epstein, Maxwell, or employees called her to schedule massages for Epstein. The document concludes with a legal argument explaining that to convict Ms. Maxwell of conspiracy, the prosecution only needs to prove that any member of the conspiracy committed an overt act, not necessarily Maxwell herself.
DOJ-OGR-00017243.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing jury instructions regarding overt acts in a conspiracy charge. It lists specific allegations against Maxwell involving minors named Jane, Annie, and Carolyn, describing events such as travel for sexual abuse and unsolicited massages in locations like New York, Florida, and New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00013818.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from the direct examination of a witness named Swain. The testimony concerns a trip taken by an individual named Annie to New Mexico in the spring of 1996, which the witness confirms was paid for by Epstein. The witness denies any contact or meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell but confirms speaking with Epstein shortly before the trip and driving Annie to the airport.
DOJ-OGR-00013801.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Mulligan. The witness recounts conversations with his high school girlfriend, Annie, about her experiences with a woman named Maxwell in New Mexico. According to the testimony, Annie described Maxwell as charming, received a gift of cowboy boots from her, and was encouraged by Maxwell to have a massage.
DOJ-OGR-00013781.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named A. Farmer (Annie) by attorney Ms. Pomerantz. The witness recounts what she told the FBI in 2006 about a massage given to her by someone named Maxwell, describing being asked to undress and being touched. Attorney Ms. Menninger objects to the testimony on the grounds that it is narrative.
DOJ-OGR-00013743.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer. The questioning focuses on a massage incident where a person named Maxwell allegedly asked Farmer to undress, exposing her breast. The cross-examination highlights a potential inconsistency between Farmer's current testimony and a 2019 conversation she had with Mike Baker of The New York Times, specifically regarding her uncertainty at the time about whether she was wearing underwear during the massage.
| 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 |
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.
Reconsideration of response
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
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.
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
Small talk during massage
making small talk
Legal Review
Review of discovery materials
Spending time vs Communicating
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
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.
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.
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.
Request to question Juror 50
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
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.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity