MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane
|
Acquaintance |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Friend |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Romantic |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Litigant judge |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Elizabeth
|
Adversarial defendant victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-1
|
Perpetrator victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Adversarial defendant victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Accomplice |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Criminal conspiracy |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Defendant victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Conspirators |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Scotty
|
Juror defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Victim abuser |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Facilitator |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial investigative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Employees
|
Employee |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-11-10 | N/A | US V Maxwell TRIAL proceedings | Court | View |
| 2021-10-21 | N/A | Telephone Conference held by Judge Nathan (Subject line implies 'Tomorrow' relative to 21st, but ... | Telephone Conference | View |
| 2021-10-18 | Legal deadline | The deadline to prepare and submit additional filings (motions in limine). | N/A | View |
| 2021-10-11 | N/A | Deadline for Government to disclose all Jencks Act and Giglio material. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2021-08-27 | N/A | Administration of the Maxwell Juror Questionnaire | Unknown | View |
| 2021-08-13 | N/A | Judge Nathan denied all of Maxwell's supplemental motions and an ex parte motion for Rule 17 subp... | Court | View |
| 2021-08-13 | Court ruling | The Court denied Maxwell's motion to obtain relief specified in her supplemental pre-trial motion... | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-08-11 | N/A | A voice message from an unavailable name was received and forwarded through an agency/organizatio... | Unknown | View |
| 2021-07-12 | Trial | Scheduled commencement date for the trial. | United States District Court | View |
| 2021-06-25 | N/A | Filing of Document 307 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | US District Court (SDNY imp... | View |
| 2021-06-25 | N/A | Court ruling denying Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence. | Court | View |
| 2021-06-25 | N/A | Filing of Document 307 | Court Docket | View |
| 2021-05-27 | Legal filing | Filing of a legal document arguing for the denial of Maxwell's motion. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-05-27 | N/A | Maxwell filed a 'renewed motion' under the same docket as her initial appeal. | Appellate Court | View |
| 2021-05-27 | N/A | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's bail applications. | District Court | View |
| 2021-05-17 | Legal filing | Maxwell filed a renewed motion for pretrial release. | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-29 | Legal action | Maxwell submitted a letter to Judge Nathan regarding her sleeping conditions at the MDC. | District Court | View |
| 2021-04-29 | N/A | Judge Nathan issued an order on the docket in Maxwell's case directing the MDC to take certain st... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-04-29 | N/A | Canceled: Hold for Maxwell witness meetings | Unknown | View |
| 2021-04-27 | Court ruling | The Court affirmed Judge Nathan's bail decisions and denied Maxwell's motion for pretrial release. | Court | View |
| 2021-04-27 | Legal ruling | The Court affirmed Judge Nathan's orders denying Maxwell's pretrial release and denied her motion... | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-16 | N/A | Filing of Document 207 | Court Record | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Court ruling | The Court issued an opinion denying the Defendant's pretrial motions as premature. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal proceeding | The Court issued an Opinion & Order, the reasoning of which is used to deny Maxwell's current mot... | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 207 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's motion for a new trial. The defendant argues that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse denied her the ability to use a peremptory challenge. The court distinguishes the applicable federal law (the McDonough standard) from the New Jersey state law cited by the defendant and begins its analysis of the first prong of the McDonough test, noting that Juror 50 did provide inaccurate answers on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00010315.jpg
This is page 9 of a legal filing by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, dated March 15, 2022, regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The document argues that 'Juror 50' was biased and answered voir dire questions (specifically Question 25 and 49) incorrectly regarding his history of sexual abuse because he does not identify as a 'victim' due to his healing process. The defense argues this psychological coping mechanism prevented accurate answers and demonstrates bias, reiterating objections to the Court's limitation on questioning the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010219.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on March 11, 2022, related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The judge confirms on the record with Juror 50 and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding his answers during jury selection. The court also acknowledges receiving a written application from the government, which is confirmed by government representative Ms. Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00009969.jpg
This document is a page from an index for a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case of 'United States of America, v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.'. The page lists numerous words and proper names (such as McCarthy, McDonough, and Massachusetts) and provides the page and line numbers where they can be found in the full transcript. The document was produced by Southern District Reporters and bears the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009969.
DOJ-OGR-00009863.jpg
This document is a screenshot of a Daily Mail Online news article from January 26, 2022, related to legal case 1:20-cr-00330-RA. It features a photograph from the U.S. District Attorney's Office showing Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein together. The caption states that Maxwell faced six sex trafficking counts based on the testimony of four victims.
DOJ-OGR-00009822.jpg
This legal document argues that there is no evidence of actual bias from Juror 50 in the trial of a defendant named Maxwell. It cites the juror's public statements affirming his belief in the presumption of innocence, the jury's careful deliberations, and his answers during voir dire as proof of his impartiality. The document contrasts this with the defendant's claims that the juror made prejudicial statements after the trial, such as calling her a 'predator'.
DOJ-OGR-00009696.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal document filed on March 11, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It lists numerous legal cases, with decision dates ranging from 1933 to 2022, which are cited as legal precedent in the main filing. Each entry includes the case name, citation, and the page number(s) where it is referenced in the document.
DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
This document constitutes page 46 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 25, 2022. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove that the Government intentionally delayed her indictment to gain a 'tactical advantage,' citing numerous Second Circuit legal precedents to support this standard. The court dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding the delay as 'specious' and notes a lack of evidence that the delay was intended to thwart her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009597.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant's (Maxwell's) due process claim should be denied. The court asserts that she has failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from a pre-indictment delay or that the Government's delay was for an improper purpose. The document cites legal precedents, including United States v. Marion, to emphasize that the statute of limitations is the main safeguard against stale charges and that cases brought within that period hold a strong presumption of validity.
DOJ-OGR-00009571.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing, dated February 25, 2022, detailing the Government's arguments in a criminal case. It focuses on the alleged enticement and transportation of individuals, specifically 'Jane,' by Maxwell, Epstein, and the defendant across state lines to New York for abuse, emphasizing the intent behind these actions as sufficient for a Mann Act violation. The document also mentions the alleged grooming of 'Annie' by the defendant after she had visited Epstein in New York, and the intent of the defendant and Epstein to abuse 'Carolyn' and 'Annie'.
DOJ-OGR-00009554.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 620) from February 25, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text presents the Government's argument against the Defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing allegations that 'Juror 50' made false statements during voir dire. The filing cites *Warger v. Shauers* and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to argue that juror testimony regarding internal deliberations or personal experiences (unless 'extraneous') cannot be used to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009547.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely an opinion or order, dated February 25, 2022. The court is addressing a defendant's argument for an evidentiary hearing, rejecting it by citing numerous legal precedents that establish a very high standard for post-verdict inquiries into jury conduct. The court emphasizes that motions to set aside verdicts are disfavored and that allowing such inquiries without concrete evidence could lead to negative consequences like jury harassment and tampering.
DOJ-OGR-00009545.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. It discusses a motion for a new trial based on 'Juror 50' allegedly failing to disclose information (specifically regarding childhood sexual abuse) during voir dire. The text outlines the legal standards for such a motion, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and the Supreme Court case *McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood*.
DOJ-OGR-00003135.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution (the Government) in the criminal case against the defendant, Maxwell. The Government argues that Maxwell's various motions for disclosure, including a request for a bill of particulars, should be denied as they are meritless or premature. The prosecution asserts that it has already provided sufficient information through the indictment and discovery, and that the defendant is not entitled to the requested details under established law.
DOJ-OGR-00003098.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss a perjury charge. The prosecution contends that the defendant's false statements in a deposition for the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil suit were material, as truthful answers could have corroborated claims that the defendant and Epstein recruited Giuffre and could have led to other victims or witnesses. The filing asserts that the issue of materiality is a question for the jury and should not be decided by the court at this stage.
DOJ-OGR-00003089.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 16, 2021, presents an argument that a jury could find the defendant's testimony to be false. The prosecution argues that the defendant, likely Maxwell, falsely claimed to be unaware of any minors at Jeffrey Epstein's properties besides Giuffre, contradicting an indictment alleging interactions with 'Minor Victim-1'. The document refutes the defense's claims that the questions were ambiguous or improper, citing the defendant's own statements that the events in question 'never happened'.
DOJ-OGR-00003078.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, provides the factual background for a case, detailing how Virginia Roberts Giuffre joined a lawsuit concerning a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Giuffre alleged that the defendant was a "primary co-conspirator" who procured underage girls for Epstein and participated in sexual abuse. The document cites Giuffre's specific allegations that the defendant persuaded her to go to Epstein's mansion and was involved in a sexual encounter there.
DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) claims. The Government refutes the defendant's assertion that she was protected by a civil protective order when giving deposition testimony, citing case law (e.g., Andover Data Servs., Davis) to establish that such orders do not provide the same protections as the Fifth Amendment. The document also dismisses the defendant's claim that the Government's conduct violated her due process rights as "meritless."
DOJ-OGR-00003046.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, dated April 16, 2021, which presents an argument against the defendant Maxwell's claim to Fourth Amendment privacy for her deposition transcripts. The text refutes Maxwell's argument by distinguishing her case from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling in *Carpenter*, which concerned the privacy of cell phone location data and surveillance, not deposition testimony given in a civil suit. The document asserts that Maxwell's situation does not fall under the specific privacy protections established in *Carpenter*.
DOJ-OGR-00003043.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Fourth Amendment motion by an individual named Maxwell should be dismissed. The core argument is that Maxwell lacks legal standing to make the claim because she had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the files of a third-party law firm that represented her adversary in a separate civil litigation. The document cites numerous legal precedents to support the position that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted on behalf of others.
DOJ-OGR-00003042.jpg
This document is a legal filing, likely from the Government, arguing against a motion by a defendant named Maxwell to suppress evidence. The Government contends that Maxwell has no legal basis for suppression under the 'Martindell' precedent and that the court should decline to review a prior, coequal judge's (Chief Judge McMahon) decision to modify a protective order. The filing cites several Second Circuit cases to support its position that suppression is not the proper remedy and that pre-existing documents are not covered by the protective order's presumptions.
DOJ-OGR-00003041.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a motion from the defendant, Maxwell. The text argues against the Government's position by citing legal precedents like Palmieri and Martindell and contrasting the differing rulings of two judicial officers, Judge Netburn and Chief Judge McMahon, on the matter of sealing orders and grand jury secrecy. The core issue revolves around whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the Government's actions, with Maxwell siding with Judge Netburn's finding that the Government's arguments were 'unpersuasive'.
DOJ-OGR-00003037.jpg
This legal document is the Government's response arguing against Defendant Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence. The Government asserts that it lawfully obtained materials from the law firm Boies Schiller via a grand jury subpoena, following the correct legal procedure under the Martindell precedent by getting judicial authorization to modify a protective order. The document contends that Maxwell's motion is based on incorrect facts and law and should therefore be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00003034.jpg
This legal document details a ruling by Chief Judge McMahon concerning a government investigation related to a civil lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. The judge concluded that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, did not improperly instigate the government's investigation and, due to "extraordinary circumstances," granted the government's request to access certain materials previously under a protective order. The ruling permitted the Government to share a specific court order with Boies Schiller to aid its investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003033.jpg
This legal document describes a ruling made on April 9, 2019, by Chief Judge McMahon, who granted the Government's application to modify a protective order. The judge analyzed the case using Martindell factors and Second Circuit case law, concluding that while the order was necessary for Giuffre to depose Maxwell, Maxwell's reliance on it to shield information from law enforcement was unreasonable. Ultimately, the judge granted the government's application for modification.
| 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 |
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'.
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'.
Epstein's sexual preferences and needs
Maxwell told the witness, Kate, that Epstein likes 'cute, young, pretty' girls and that he needed to have sex about three times a day. These conversations occurred frequently ('All the time') within the first couple of months after they met.
Interaction with Epstein
Maxwell directed Juan Alessi to speak to Epstein only when spoken to and not to look him in the eyes.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Civil Case Testimony
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
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.
Reconsideration of response to jury note
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of Judge Nathan's response to the jury's note and raised issues of constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
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.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
Taking over the house
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
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.
Appointments
Maxwell has been on record since 2009 calling Carolyn for appointments.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity