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 | 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-00014622.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, details overt acts from an indictment related to conspiracy charges. It alleges that between 1994 and 2002, Maxwell, along with co-conspirator Epstein, engaged in sexual abuse and trafficking of minors identified as Jane, Annie, and Carolyn. The alleged acts occurred in New York, Florida, and New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00014579.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal trial. The speaker argues that the witnesses—Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie—have no financial motive to lie in their testimony against the defendant, Maxwell, as their civil cases are settled and they have already received compensation. The speaker specifically addresses and dismisses a defense claim regarding a conversation between Jane's lawyer and a prosecutor, asserting it does not constitute evidence of a financial incentive for testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00014576.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, showing a rebuttal by Ms. Comey. She argues against the defense's claim that their client, Maxwell, was framed by witnesses. Comey's reasoning is that before Epstein's death in 2019, he was the 'big fish' and the logical target for any fabricated stories, meaning there was no motive for witnesses to invent Maxwell's involvement years ago.
DOJ-OGR-00014575.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues against the defense's theory that lawyers fabricated stories about Maxwell for financial gain. She presents evidence that three victims—Jane, Carolyn, and Annie—had reported Maxwell's involvement to friends, boyfriends, and the FBI years prior (in 2006 and 2007), long before any compensation fund or financial incentive existed, thus making the defense's theory untenable.
DOJ-OGR-00014573.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal rebuttal by Ms. Comey, filed on August 10, 2022. Comey argues that the defense is focusing on 'peripheral details' to distract the jury from the core fact that a witness, Carolyn, has consistently and without prompting identified Maxwell as a key figure involved in scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein, citing Carolyn's 2009 deposition. The argument aims to reinforce the credibility of Carolyn's memory against defense suggestions that it was contaminated or implanted.
DOJ-OGR-00014572.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey. She counters the defense's focus on inconsistencies in the testimony of a victim named Carolyn, specifically regarding her age at the time of abuse (16 vs. 14) and her memory of a photo of a pregnant Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues these are minor details, asserts the act was still a crime, and directs the jury to government exhibits that support the presence of such photos in the Palm Beach house.
DOJ-OGR-00014565.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey's) rebuttal in a criminal trial, likely against Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues that the jury should rely on the powerful and consistent testimony of multiple victims, as sexual abuse crimes rarely produce documentary evidence. She highlights that three separate victims gave similar accounts of the defendant touching their breasts and using massage as a prelude to sexual abuse, which serves as strong corroboration of guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014550.jpg
This document is a transcript of a closing argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues for Maxwell's acquittal on 'Count Six', which relates to an accuser named Carolyn, by attacking Carolyn's credibility and claiming she never traveled to New York as alleged. The attorney also distances Maxwell from any involvement in the travel of another individual, Annie Farmer, to undermine the government's broader conspiracy theory involving Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002855.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 29, 2021. It details specific allegations of Maxwell facilitating the sexual abuse of three unnamed minors (Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4) for Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2002. The alleged incidents occurred in various locations, including New Mexico, London, and Florida, and form the basis for Count Two of the indictment, 'Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts'.
DOJ-OGR-00020149.jpg
This legal document is a court order signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 28, 2020. The order explicitly denies Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail. The decision references a precedent from the 2018 case of United States v. Raniere.
DOJ-OGR-00020075.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued detention of the defendant, Maxwell. It asserts that even though some documentary evidence does not name her, it supports victims' testimonies about their interactions with both her and her co-conspirator, Epstein, making the Government's case strong. The document also dismisses the defense's bail arguments, citing the defendant's foreign ties, transfer of millions to her spouse, and ability to hide as factors that weigh heavily in favor of detention.
DOJ-OGR-00005551.jpg
This legal document outlines the recollections of an individual identified as 'AK' regarding discussions about the Epstein case. AK recalls a meeting with attorneys where she sought to clarify their proposal to have the SDNY re-investigate conduct previously handled in Florida, and she disputes an account of the meeting from Brad Edwards's book. The document also notes AK's vague memory of being told about depositions and the possibility of perjury charges against Maxwell, though no investigation was opened, and her decision to take no further action on the Epstein matter after calling Sean Watson.
DOJ-OGR-00005550.jpg
This document summarizes the recollections of 'AK,' a Human Trafficking Coordinator, regarding potential investigations into Epstein at SDNY. AK denies that attorneys urged an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell as a 'duo,' stating the focus was on Epstein and Maxwell was only mentioned in passing. AK also denies ever meeting or speaking with attorney David Boies and has no memory of a second meeting on the subject in the summer of 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00005546.jpg
This document summarizes a conference call held on February 11, 2021, with Amanda Kramer (AK) regarding her recollections of a meeting on February 29, 2016. During the 2016 meeting, attorneys Pete Skinner, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger presented information to AK, who was then a prosecutor, advocating for the SDNY to open a criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The memo details AK's limited memory of the meeting, the roles of the attorneys, and the mention of civil lawsuits, including the 'Guiffre v. Maxwell' case.
DOJ-OGR-00005318.jpg
This document is a transcript of Judge Alison Nathan's preliminary remarks to potential jurors in the case of United States v. Maxwell, filed on October 22, 2021. The judge welcomes the jury pool to the Southern District of New York and outlines the two-phase jury selection process, which includes filling out a questionnaire and potential in-person questioning starting in mid-November.
DOJ-OGR-00020381.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal document filed on May 27, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. Assistant United States Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach argue that a motion filed by an individual named Maxwell should be denied. The document is electronically signed by Maurene Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00020377.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to an appeal by Maxwell regarding her pretrial confinement conditions. The Government argues that Maxwell's complaints about disruptive nighttime flashlight checks are unsubstantiated and do not demonstrably interfere with her trial preparation. The document also refutes Maxwell's accusations of misrepresentation, clarifying a statement made by Government counsel and explaining an acknowledged inaccuracy in information received from the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00020375.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court order denying a renewed motion by an individual named Maxwell for temporary release from confinement. The court relies on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided a compelling reason, such as new evidence or a change in law, to justify reversing its prior decision. The court also dismisses Maxwell's arguments concerning a recent letter briefing and a written order by Judge Nathan, affirming the previous finding that Maxwell is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020374.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a 'renewed motion' from a defendant named Maxwell is meritless. It cites legal precedents (United States v. Hochevar, Stack v. Boyle) and procedural rules to assert that the motion is not properly before the court. The document further states that a lower court judge, Judge Nathan, did not err in previously finding three times that Maxwell is a flight risk and denying bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) discusses the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The text argues that MDC's nighttime security protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation and notes procedural errors in Maxwell's filing of a 'renewed motion' rather than a new appeal or proper motion in District Court. It cites Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the untimeliness of the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00020368.jpg
This document page, part of a legal filing from May 2021, details the Government's response to Judge Nathan regarding 'flashlight surveillance' of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. It explains that while general population inmates are checked hourly and SHU inmates every 30 minutes, Maxwell is checked every 15 minutes due to an 'enhanced security schedule' and 'heightened safety and security concerns,' despite not being on suicide watch.
DOJ-OGR-00020367.jpg
This legal document outlines the procedural history of a case involving a defendant named Maxwell. After Maxwell appealed two of Judge Nathan's bail decisions and was denied pretrial release on April 27, 2021, she did not file a renewed motion. Instead, on April 29, 2021, she submitted a letter to Judge Nathan requesting the court to order the MDC to stop or justify the 15-minute light surveillance that was disrupting her sleep.
DOJ-OGR-00020366.jpg
This legal document details the court's denial of a bail application filed by the defendant, Maxwell, on February 23, 2021. Judge Nathan found Maxwell's arguments about her confinement conditions unpersuasive and reiterated that her detention was necessary due to her being a flight risk, citing her substantial international ties, financial resources, and a "lack of candor regarding her assets" at the time of her arrest. The judge concluded that even a substantial bail package could not reasonably assure Maxwell's future appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00020362.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, is a court filing outlining the allegations against Maxwell. It details her alleged role as a co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997, including identifying, enticing, and grooming victims. The document also references a Superseding Indictment that expanded the charges and the conspiracy timeline to 2004, and notes that Maxwell lied under oath in a civil deposition to conceal her crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00020322.jpg
This is a 'Notice of Case Manager Change' issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 27, 2021, regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Case 21-58cr). The document lists Debra Ann Livingston as Chief Judge and Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe as Clerk of Court, and references the lower court proceedings in the SDNY under Judge Nathan.
| 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 |
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.
Spending time vs Communicating
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
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.
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
Reconsideration of response
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
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.
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
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.
Legal Review
Review of discovery materials
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.
Request to question Juror 50
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity