MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-01-01 | N/A | Prior ruling cited (Maxwell, 2021 WL 3591801) | Court Record | View |
| 2020-12-28 | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's bail application in a written order. | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-28 | N/A | Opinion & Order in case 20cr330 (referenced in attachment filename) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-12-28 | N/A | Activity/Order in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA v. Maxwell | Court (implied) | View |
| 2020-12-21 | Legal filing deadline | Deadline for Maxwell's pretrial motions to be filed. | United States District Court | View |
| 2020-12-20 | Legal decision | A decision was made in the case of US v Maxwell, as noted in the watermark. | Court | View |
| 2020-12-20 | Legal decision | The case 'US v Maxwell' was decided, as noted in the document's watermark. | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-18 | N/A | Trial of Ghislaine Maxwell | Court | View |
| 2020-12-08 | Legal proceeding | Maxwell renewed her request for bail, presenting a revised bail package. | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-08 | Legal proceeding | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's renewed application for bail. | N/A | View |
| 2020-11-25 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221599, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, ... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-11-18 | N/A | Memo Endorsement in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA v. Maxwell | Court (implied) | View |
| 2020-11-09 | Court ruling | The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal of Defendant-Appellant Maxw... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2020-10-26 | N/A | Call with GA USAO re Maxwell | Unknown (Remote/Phone) | View |
| 2020-10-23 | N/A | Discovery Review | MDC | View |
| 2020-10-19 | Court ruling | The court dismissed the appeal of Defendant-Appellant Maxwell and denied the motion to consolidat... | N/A | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Preparation of 5th Production discovery materials for distribution to defense counsel and Ghislai... | New York, NY | View |
| 2020-10-19 | Court ruling | The appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell was dismissed, and the motion to consolidate was denied... | N/A | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court denial of Maxwell's request for a writ of mandamus. | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court denial of Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil appeal Guiffre... | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court dismissal of Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. | Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court dismissal of Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order modification. | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2020-10-02 | N/A | Judge Nathan issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion to modify a Protective Order | District Court | View |
| 2020-10-02 | N/A | Filing of Document 82 in Case 20-3061 | Court | View |
| 2020-10-02 | N/A | Rule 16 Discovery | Court | 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 |
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.
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.
Carolyn's career aspirations
Maxwell asked Carolyn what she wanted to do in the future, and Carolyn replied that she wanted to become a massage therapist.
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.
Travel and an invitation to an island
Maxwell asked Carolyn about her travel history and invited her to an island. Carolyn declined, stating she was too young and her mother would not permit it.
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Scheduling massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
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.
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.
Taking over the house
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
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'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity