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-00014433.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court summation by Ms. Moe, likely a prosecutor, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Moe argues that the defense's attempt to discredit a witness named Jane by presenting other women named Michelle and Ava is a deliberate and meaningless distraction. She emphasizes that Jane never identified the specific women brought to court (Michelle Healey and Eva Dubin) and points out that Epstein and Maxwell's contact book contained multiple individuals with those common first names, suggesting the defense's tactic was intentionally vague and misleading.
DOJ-OGR-00014430.jpg
This document is a page from a court summation in which the speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues why a victim named Jane took a long time to disclose sexual abuse. The speaker cites expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio, who explained that victims are less likely to report abuse when the perpetrator is close to them, and points to Jane's close relationships with Maxwell (like a "big sister") and Epstein (a "godfather"). The text also recounts testimony from a witness, Matt, about Jane confronting her mother years later, stating that money she received was "not free."
DOJ-OGR-00014429.jpg
This document is a page from a court summation by Ms. Moe, discussing testimony related to a victim referred to as "Jane." The prosecutor highlights corroborating testimony from a witness named Matt, who confirmed that Jane had told him years prior about her abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and a woman identified as Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00014426.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Moe) summation in a criminal case. The prosecutor argues that the victim, Jane, was abused by Maxwell and Epstein for years, starting when she was a teenager, and that her testimony is corroborated by another witness, Juan Alessi. Alessi's testimony confirms he knew Jane at a young age and remembered driving her to the airport with Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014412.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation given by Ms. Moe. She characterizes the relationship between Maxwell and Epstein as a sexual partnership, which afforded Maxwell a luxury lifestyle traveling between Epstein's many properties. To establish Maxwell's authority, Ms. Moe references the testimony of Juan Alessi, a former house manager, who stated Maxwell took control of the household immediately upon her arrival.
DOJ-OGR-00005273.jpg
This document is an email dated October 21, 2021, from reporter Pete Brush of Law360 to Judge Nathan of the Southern District of New York. On behalf of a coalition of reporters from various news outlets, Brush expresses support for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's arguments against secret jury selection and vetting in the upcoming trial of USA v. Maxwell. The email underscores the press corps' interest in maintaining transparency in the judicial process.
DOJ-OGR-00005263.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated October 18, 2021, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of his client, Ms. Maxwell. Pagliuca argues that due to recent government disclosures and a cumbersome two-step file encryption process implemented by the government, there has been insufficient time to meet the deadline for filing motions *in limine*. Citing a previous court order, he reserves the right for the defense to file additional or supplemental motions after the deadline has passed.
DOJ-OGR-00005182.jpg
This document is a handwritten legal argument filed in court on October 12, 2021, challenging a court's interpretation of statute §3283. The author argues that the statute's legislative history, originating from the 1986 Sexual Abuse Act, demonstrates its narrow purpose is for sexual assault and related offenses, not a broader application. The argument cites several legal cases (Davis, Pledges, Bridges) to contend that the court's findings are 'patently wrong'.
DOJ-OGR-00005181.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 12, 2021, is part of a case against a defendant named Maxwell. The author argues that the United States government is misapplying the statute of limitations (18 USC § 3283) in Maxwell's case, drawing a parallel to a previous case, United States v. Diehl. The document notes that Diehl has since filed a 'fraud on the court' motion against the government for similar alleged misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00005167.jpg
This document is a narrative account from a legal filing, describing the author's interaction with a woman named Maria, an artist. It details Maria's history with Epstein and Maxwell, explaining how she was introduced to Epstein through New York socialite Eileen Guggenheim and lawyer Bert Fields. The text highlights Maria's fear of Epstein, her distrust following an experience with Vanity Fair, and how Epstein ultimately hired her for a job at his New York City mansion.
DOJ-OGR-00008829.jpg
This legal letter, dated January 25, 2022, from Nathan Siegel of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on behalf of ABC News and NBCUniversal News Group, is addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. It requests to join other news organizations in opposing the sealing of the Defendant's motion for a new trial and supporting exhibits, and specifically asks for Juror 50's motion to be unsealed, citing its relevance as a "judicial document" to the judicial process.
DOJ-OGR-00008757.jpg
This legal document outlines several overt acts related to Count Five of an indictment against Maxwell. It details the alleged recruitment and exploitation of a minor named Carolyn by Maxwell and Epstein between 2001 and 2004, including arranging travel, paying for sex acts, and encouraging her to recruit other girls. The document also mentions a separate incident involving another victim, Annie, in 1996, and explains the legal standard for proving an overt act in a conspiracy case.
DOJ-OGR-00008756.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions in the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 19, 2021. It outlines 'Instruction No. 36' regarding the 'overt act' requirement for conspiracy charges. The text explicitly lists alleged overt acts involving Maxwell and Epstein, including group sexual encounters with a minor ('Jane'), enticing a minor to travel for sexual abuse, and an unsolicited massage given by Maxwell to 'Annie' in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00008671.jpg
This legal document, part of an indictment, outlines several overt acts allegedly committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein in furtherance of a conspiracy. The acts include the recruitment and sexual exploitation of a minor named Carolyn between 2001 and 2004, involving payments, encouragement to recruit others, and arranging appointments. The document also mentions a separate 1996 incident involving another victim, Annie, and clarifies the legal standard for proving an overt act in a conspiracy case.
DOJ-OGR-00008670.jpg
This document is a page from jury instructions (Instruction No. 36) filed on December 18, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the 'Third Element' of conspiracy, requiring an 'overt act,' and lists specific alleged acts including group sexual encounters involving Maxwell, Epstein, and a minor named Jane (1994-1997), an unsolicited massage given by Maxwell to Annie in New Mexico (1996), and travel invitations to a minor named Carolyn (2001-2002).
DOJ-OGR-00005857.jpg
This legal document is the Government's response to a defense motion to exclude 'Government Exhibit 52,' a physical contact book. The Government clarifies that it will offer the physical book itself, not a scan from the 'Guiffre v. Maxwell' civil case, and argues that the book's controversial acquisition history affects its weight, not its admissibility. The Government also contends the book is not hearsay because it is being used to prove the defendant kept contact information for victims, not to prove the accuracy of that information.
DOJ-OGR-00020365.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, details the denial of a renewed bail request by Maxwell on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan denied the application, concluding that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple citizenships, financial resources, and a history of providing incomplete information to the court. The judge found that no combination of bail conditions could reasonably assure Maxwell's appearance at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020363.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the government's case against a defendant named Maxwell, stating it is supported by victim testimony and other evidence like flight records. It details that Judge Nathan has denied Maxwell's three bail applications, culminating in a bail hearing on July 14, 2020. Judge Nathan's decision to detain Maxwell was based on the strength of the government's evidence and Maxwell's risk of flight.
DOJ-OGR-00017586.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving Ghislaine Maxwell. A witness identified as 'Jane' testifies under direct examination that she received approximately $2.9 million from a victim compensation fund. She confirms that as a condition of receiving this award, she was required to dismiss her lawsuits against Maxwell and the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger objects to a question regarding the impact of the jury's verdict on this award.
DOJ-OGR-00017581.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Jane by Ms. Moe, filed on August 10, 2022. Jane testifies that she moved from New York City to Los Angeles in October 1999 for an acting job. She confirms that after her move, she remained in contact with Epstein and Maxwell until late 2002 and continued to travel with Epstein on his private jet.
DOJ-OGR-00017577.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Jane. Jane testifies that during her middle and high school years, the attention from Epstein and Maxwell made her feel special because she lacked support or attention at home. The testimony is interrupted when an attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects to a question about how these experiences have affected Jane's adult relationships.
DOJ-OGR-00017574.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct testimony of a witness named "Jane." Jane testifies that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein when she was a teenager and that an individual named Maxwell was present for these abuses on more than two occasions. She describes how these incidents would often begin as casual social gatherings at Epstein's house in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00017571.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, contains the direct examination of a witness named Jane. Jane testifies that she did not disclose being sexually abused by Maxwell and Epstein to her family or friends because of overwhelming shame and confusion. She further describes the immense personal hardship she faced during that time, including her father's death, losing her home, and her mother's severe mental health struggles, which contributed to her own feelings of hopelessness and suicidal thoughts as a teenager.
DOJ-OGR-00017562.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named "Jane." An attorney, Ms. Moe, questions Jane about whether her mother was aware that she was spending time with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as a teenager. Jane confirms her mother knew and was "enamored" by the idea, though they did not discuss it in detail. The transcript also includes a hearsay objection by another attorney, Ms. Menninger, which is overruled by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017549.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named 'Jane' by an attorney, 'Ms. Moe'. Jane testifies that 'Maxwell' (Ghislaine Maxwell) was present during unspecified incidents that occurred when Jane was 14 and 16 years old. Jane also confirms that she began traveling with both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the age of 14.
| 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 |
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.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
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'.
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.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Carolyn testified that Maxwell called her to schedule sexualized massages.
Interaction with Epstein
Maxwell directed Juan Alessi to speak to Epstein only when spoken to and not to look him in the eyes.
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.
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'.
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.
Appointments
Maxwell has been on record since 2009 calling Carolyn for appointments.
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.
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.
Reconsideration of the District Court's response
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of a response from the District Court, claiming it resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity