MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
29 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Judicial |
14
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
30 | |
|
location
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
18 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Friend |
11
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
56 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
location
USA
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Perpetrator victim |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Acquaintance |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Association |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Grooming | Over a weekend, Maxwell engaged in 'textbook grooming behavior' with Annie, including chatting wi... | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's appeal of a motion for pretrial release, focusing on her conditions of confinement. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Nighttime checks | Regular flashlight checks conducted by the MDC on Maxwell, which she claims disturb her sleep and... | MDC | View |
| N/A | Trip | A. Farmer took a trip to New Mexico. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Shopping trip | Maxwell and Epstein purchased boots for A. Farmer during a shopping trip. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Employment | Juan Alessi worked as the house manager in Palm Beach. | Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Trip | Maxwell spent her weeks flying on Epstein's private jet to his various properties. | Upper East Side, New Mexico... | View |
| N/A | Shopping trip | Maxwell took Annie on a shopping trip where they bought her boots and a hair product. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Assault | At a movie theater, Epstein held Annie's hand and rubbed her foot and arm openly in Maxwell's pre... | Movie theater | View |
| N/A | Trip | Jane was enticed by Maxwell and Epstein to travel across state lines to New York to be abused. | New York | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Prosecution of Maxwell by the USAO-SDNY. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | Transportation of Jane to New York for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. | New York | View |
| N/A | Trip | The witness's second visit to Epstein's residence, during which she states she was greeted by Max... | Epstein's residence | View |
| N/A | Massage | Maxwell gave Annie Farmer a massage when Annie was 16 years old. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Sentencing hearing | The schedule for Maxwell's sentencing hearing has not yet been set. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trip | A flight to New Mexico and a subsequent return flight involving a person named Jane. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Trip | Epstein and MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's residences. | New York and Florida | View |
| N/A | Meeting | MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 at Epstein's residence. | New Mexico | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell filed a 'renewed motion' which the court finds substantively meritless. | This Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan found three times that the Government established Maxwell is a risk of flight and th... | district court | View |
| N/A | Trip | A trip to the movies after leaving the ranch. | A movie theater in a mall area | View |
| N/A | N/A | Grand jury indictment process related to Maxwell's conduct. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Maxwell filed a renewed motion for temporary release. | this Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Grand jury proceedings related to the Epstein and Maxwell case, the transcripts of which are bein... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crime | MAXWELL began efforts to groom Minor Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein. | New Mexico | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010703.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from June 25, 2022, argues that the Court should allow victims of Maxwell's sex trafficking conspiracy to speak at her sentencing. The author contends that allowing victim impact statements provides a cathartic benefit, promotes transparency regarding the conspiracy, and is a legally recognized right for victims. The document cites legal precedent to support the claim that a victim's right to speak is important regardless of its effect on the final sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that federal courts have extremely broad and largely unlimited authority to consider information about a defendant during sentencing. It cites legal precedents and the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3661, which states 'no limitation' shall be placed on such information. The document specifically mentions that crucial information about an individual named Maxwell's 'background, character, and conduct' was possessed by two other individuals, Sarah and Elizabeth.
DOJ-OGR-00010699.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that two victims, Sarah and Elizabeth, have the right to speak at the sentencing of the defendant, Maxwell. The argument is based on both the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the court's broad discretionary power to hear from victims when determining a sentence. The document emphasizes the importance of victim statements for their own healing and as a source of information for the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010698.jpg
This legal document argues that victims, specifically Sarah and Elizabeth, have a right under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to deliver in-court statements at the sentencing of the defendant, Maxwell. It cites legal precedents and legislative intent to support the importance of these "victim impact statements," asserting they are crucial for ensuring victims are heard and for determining an appropriate punishment based on the harm caused.
DOJ-OGR-00010693.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that two of Ghislaine Maxwell's victims, Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein, should be permitted to give oral victim impact statements at her upcoming sentencing. It provides factual background on the sex trafficking conspiracy Maxwell and her coconspirator, Jeffrey Epstein, ran for over a decade. The document details how they targeted young women, like Ransome and Stein, who came to New York for the fashion industry, by preying on their vulnerabilities and promising career advancement in exchange for sexual favors.
DOJ-OGR-00010678.jpg
This document is a victim's statement from a legal case, detailing the severe and long-lasting psychological, emotional, and physical abuse she suffered at the hands of Epstein and Maxwell. The author describes how they manipulated her dream of attending the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) to control her, the constant fear she lived under, her eventual escape in 2007, and the ongoing trauma that has impacted every aspect of her life.
DOJ-OGR-00010578.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against leniency for the defendant, Maxwell, by highlighting her privileged background and a significant pattern of dishonesty. It provides two key examples of her dishonest conduct: lying under oath in a 2016 civil deposition related to a lawsuit by Virginia Roberts, and misleading Pretrial Services about her finances and home ownership in New Hampshire upon her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00010567.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that refutes two arguments made by the defendant. First, it argues that the standard for the victim's (Carolyn's) behavior is 'undue influence,' not complete lack of voluntary action. Second, it dismisses the defendant's claim of 'double-counting' in sentencing enhancements by citing legal precedents (Watkins, Kohlmeier, Arbaugh) which establish that different guideline provisions can address different harms from the same conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010565.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a sentencing enhancement against the defendant, identified as Maxwell. It presents evidence of her leadership role in a criminal conspiracy, citing her authority over an associate named Kellen, which is supported by flight records on Epstein's planes and her delegation of illicit tasks. The document then justifies a specific two-point "Undue Influence" enhancement by referencing U.S. Sentencing Guidelines concerning crimes where an adult participant influences a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00010475.jpg
This legal document page, filed on June 15, 2022, argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's pre-sentence detention conditions were equivalent to 'supermax' confinement. It quotes an email from Supervisory Staff Attorney Sophia Papapetru, which relays MDC Legal's rationale for transferring Maxwell to the general population post-verdict, stating her security needs had changed. The document defines the harsh conditions of supermax confinement to support its claim that Maxwell's treatment was punitive and unjustified.
DOJ-OGR-00010455.jpg
This document, identified as part of a Presentence Investigation Report, details a recommendation by Probation on June 9, 2022, for a 240-month imprisonment sentence for Ms. Maxwell, followed by five years of supervised release. It outlines mitigating factors, including her age, philanthropic history with organizations like the Clinton Global Initiative and The TerraMar Project, and her activities during incarceration, such as completing courses and tutoring inmates. The document also notes Ms. Maxwell's intention to appeal her conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00010404.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling denying a motion from the Defendant, Maxwell. The Defendant argued that the Government's delay in bringing charges prejudiced her ability to prepare a defense, but the Court found no evidence that the delay was intentional or for tactical advantage. The Court reaffirms its previous rulings and notes that trial testimony provided legitimate explanations for the timing of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00010403.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion denying a defendant's post-trial motions. The court rejects the defendant's argument that a witness's (Jane's) testimony caused "ultimate prejudice" leading to improper convictions on Mann Act counts. The court also denies the defendant's claim of prejudicial pre-indictment delay, stating that the defendant failed to meet the stringent two-part legal test required to prove such a claim.
DOJ-OGR-00010399.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely a response or motion, dated April 29, 2022. It defends the Court's decisions regarding jury instructions against objections from the Defendant (Maxwell). The Court rejected the Defendant's requests to limit the charges to specific travel routes (e.g., from Florida to New York) and to instruct the jury on the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Florida, arguing these requests were unnecessary, inaccurate, and would confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, defends the court's decision to reject the defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues the requested instructions were unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate, particularly the claim that sexual activity outside New York could not form the basis for the charges. The document asserts that the existing jury charge correctly focused the inquiry on the violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, specifically concerning the overt act of transporting the victim, Jane, from Florida to New York for the purpose of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010394.jpg
This legal document is part of a court filing arguing that the government's summation during a trial did not constructively amend the indictment. The prosecution consistently maintained that the defendant and an associate, Epstein, transported underage girls like "Jane" to New York with the intent for them to be sexually abused there. The defense counters that a jury note suggests the conviction was based on intent for activity in New Mexico, not New York, and that the court erred by not providing a supplemental instruction to clarify this point.
DOJ-OGR-00010393.jpg
This page details the Government's evidence regarding the Defendant (Maxwell) and Epstein's criminal scheme, focusing on the testimony of a victim named Jane. It describes how Jane was groomed and trafficked across state lines, including trips to New York, Florida, and New Mexico, for sexual activity with Epstein, facilitated by the Defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00010390.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated April 29, 2022. It addresses the Defendant's argument that her conviction was based on a 'constructive amendment' to the indictment, because a jury note suggested they found her guilty of intending a crime in New Mexico, rather than New York as charged. The court refutes this claim, concluding there is no 'substantial likelihood' that the Defendant was convicted of an offense different from the one in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00010370.jpg
This legal document is a court order from April 29, 2022, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. Following a jury conviction on three conspiracy counts, the defendant argued that the counts were multiplicitous and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court agrees that Counts One and Five are multiplicitous with Count Three and therefore grants the defendant's motion to not enter judgment on those two counts.
DOJ-OGR-00010362.jpg
This legal document is a court's conclusion regarding a defendant's motion to find a juror, Juror 50, biased. The defendant argued the juror's failure to disclose a personal history of sexual abuse during jury selection showed an inability to be impartial. The Court rejects this argument, finding that the juror's omission was due to inattention rather than a deliberate lie or perjury, and therefore denies the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00010361.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. The Court rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) post-hearing argument that Juror 50 was biased because he failed to follow instructions on a questionnaire. The Court found that while the juror admitted to being distracted during the questionnaire, he was attentive and followed all instructions during the more critical phases of voir dire, the trial, and deliberations, and was therefore able to serve as an unbiased juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010354.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell) challenge to the impartiality of Juror 50. The court finds Juror 50's testimony credible and determines he did not deliberately lie to be selected, distinguishing his situation from a precedent case (Sampson) involving extensive dishonesty. The court also addresses Maxwell's argument that Juror 50 was biased due to similarities between his personal history of sexual abuse and the trial's subject matter, noting the defendant's nuanced argument for implied or inferred bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010353.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. The court analyzes and rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) argument that Juror 50 was biased due to dishonest answers on a jury questionnaire. The court distinguishes this case from precedents involving deliberate deception, crediting Juror 50's explanation that his nondisclosure was an 'inadvertent mistake' resulting from personal distractions and 'skimming' the form.
DOJ-OGR-00010347.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court ruling (Document 653) filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Maxwell. The text addresses the legal standard for 'Actual Bias' and specifically rules that the record does not support a finding that 'Juror 50' was biased. The Court found Juror 50's testimony credible, noting that he affirmed his personal history of sexual abuse would not impact his impartiality or ability to assess witness credibility, rejecting the Defendant's (Maxwell) argument that his responses were merely self-serving.
DOJ-OGR-00010344.jpg
This legal document details the court's analysis of contradictions in Juror 50's statements and actions regarding his past sexual abuse. The Defendant argues that the juror's claim of reluctance to disclose his abuse is undermined by his post-trial media interviews and a social media comment to witness Annie Farmer. In response to the Court's questioning, Juror 50 explained that he did not believe his family or friends would find out about these public disclosures.
| 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