MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge Sweet
|
Defendant judge |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co named on evidence |
1
|
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-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 |
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.
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.
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.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
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.
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'.
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.
Maxwell Reply
A reply brief filed by the Defendant, Maxwell, which raises an argument about the jury instructions.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity