| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003-01-01 | Legal event | An amendment to Section 3283 was passed, which Maxwell claims was impermissibly applied to her case. | N/A | View |
| 2003-01-01 | N/A | Government cannot apply 2003 amendment to § 3283 that extended the statute of limitations. | N/A | View |
| 2002-12-19 | Delivery | Package with Tracking ID 837700541252 was delivered at 10:30 and signed for by .MAXWELL. | N/A | View |
| 2002-12-11 | Package shipment | A FedEx Standard Overnight package was dropped off by Alan Dershowitz, addressed to Edwina Simmon... | From zip code 02155 | View |
| 2002-01-01 | Shipment | Maxwell used Epstein's FedEx account to send packages from his office, as shown in records from 2... | Epstein's office | View |
| 2002-01-01 | Financial transaction | Epstein paid Maxwell $5 million. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Crime | MAXWELL and Epstein invited Minor Victim-4 to travel from Florida to a place outside of Florida w... | Florida | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Alleged criminal conduct | The period during which Maxwell's alleged conduct related to sex trafficking counts occurred. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Scheduling | Epstein, MAXWELL, or other employees called Minor Victim-4 to schedule appointments for her to ma... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Evolution of abuse tactics from one-on-one relationships to a 'pyramid scheme of abuse'. | Not specified | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Crime | Start of a four-year time period in which alleged sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy ... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Recruitment | Epstein, Maxwell, and other employees paid certain victims to recruit additional girls for Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Recruitment / interaction | Events involving Carolyn, who was 14, going to Jeffrey Epstein's house, interacting with Maxwell,... | Jeffrey Epstein's house | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Maxwell and Epstein invited Carolyn to travel with Epstein. | Florida to outside Florida | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Grooming and abuse | MAXWELL groomed Minor Victim-4 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein. Minor Victim-4 provided nud... | Epstein's Palm Beach Residence | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Trip invitation | Epstein and MAXWELL invited Minor Victim-4 to travel with Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Epstein and Maxwell recruited Carolyn to engage in sex acts; Carolyn paid cash. | Palm Beach Residence | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Crime | Offenses committed by Epstein, in which Maxwell was involved, covered by a Non-Prosecution Agreem... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Epstein and Maxwell encouraged Carolyn to recruit other girls. | Palm Beach residence | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Recruitment of Carolyn for paid sex acts. | Palm Beach residence | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Maxwell and Epstein invited Carolyn (under 17) to travel. | Florida to outside Florida | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Recruitment and abuse | Virginia Roberts brought Carolyn, then 14, to the Palm Beach house where she met Maxwell and Epst... | Palm Beach house | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Scheduling appointments | On multiple occasions, Epstein, Maxwell, or other employees called Carolyn to schedule appointmen... | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Carolyn invited to travel with Epstein. | Florida to outside Florida | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Recruitment | Virginia brought Carolyn, age 14, to the Palm Beach house where she met Maxwell and Epstein, begi... | Palm Beach | View |
This document is a printout of email metadata dated October 9, 2020. The subject is 'RE: Maxwell', likely concerning the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The email involves multiple recipients within the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS), though their specific identities are redacted. It appears to include an embedded message file.
This document is an email chain from October 2020 regarding legal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell. A sender (redacted) forwards a communication from the law firm Cohen & Gresser LLP to another party (redacted), discussing letters received from 'Maxwell's counsel' concerning discovery and prison conditions. The sender proposes a meeting to discuss a draft response expected to be ready by the following Monday.
This document is a heavily redacted email header dated October 30, 2020. The subject line is 'RE: Maxwell Letter' and it includes an embedded message file. The email was blind copied (Bcc) to 'USAHUB-USAJournal111'. The document bears the ID EFTA00013207.
This document is a heavily redacted email dated October 28, 2020. The subject line is 'RE: Call re Maxwell Staffing', suggesting a discussion about staffing related to the Maxwell case (likely Ghislaine Maxwell). The email was blind copied (Bcc) to 'USAHUB-USAJournal111'. The message body text is redacted, but technical metadata including a Message-ID is visible.
This document is an email from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) to defense counsel regarding the case US v. Maxwell (20 Cr. 330). The email, dated September 14, 2021, serves as a cover for an attached discovery letter concerning 'victim disclosures'.
This document is an email dated February 26, 2021, regarding a legal memorandum opposing motions by Ghislaine Maxwell. The sender attaches a draft ('cite-checked omnibus MOL') and outlines the plan for the team and paralegals to proofread, handle discovery references, and manage redactions before filing.
This document is an internal email dated October 1, 2020, regarding legal filings in the Maxwell case. The sender submits a public version of a '16(d) letter' and a 'Local Rule 16.1 affidavit' for review to recipients addressed as 'Chiefs'. The sender and recipients are redacted.
This document is an email sent on January 28, 2021, by an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. The email, with the subject 'Maxwell motions 1 of 3', transmits attachments related to pretrial motions, including a cover letter addressed to Judge Nathan dated January 25, 2021. The sender and recipient identities are redacted.
An email thread from July 2020 between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and unknown recipients regarding the case US v. Maxwell. An Assistant US Attorney provides the grand jury return for a superseding indictment, noting it is unsealed and was presented to Judge Nathan. A subsequent email requests the immediate docketing of the indictment on ECF to ensure notice is given before the defendant's upcoming arraignment.
This document is an email metadata printout dated October 20, 2020. It details correspondence between the FBI (New York field office), NYPD, and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) regarding the 'Maxwell discovery review', likely pertaining to legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell. The specific names of the agents and officials involved are redacted.
A photograph showing a collection of FBI evidence envelopes and folders lying on a floor. Notable items include an envelope labeled 'Maxwell Security footage', a folder containing a 'Certified Copy of Birth Cert' with a redacted name, and envelopes marked as 'GRAND JURY MATERIAL' and 'ELSUR' (Electronic Surveillance). The files bear the case identifier NY-3027571-BJ.
A photograph showing a sealed brown cardboard box sitting on a speckled floor. The names 'EPSTEIN / MAXWELL' are handwritten in black marker on the lower right side of the box's front panel. A Bates stamp or file number 'EFTA00008510' is visible in the bottom right corner of the image.
This document discusses legal arguments related to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) concerning Epstein, highlighting the government's perceived misinterpretation of the agreement and the findings of an OPR investigation into its execution. It asserts that Maxwell has standing to enforce the NPA as a third-party beneficiary because she falls within the class of 'any potential co-conspirators of Epstein' that the agreement was designed to protect.
This document details a legal case where a 'Petitioner' attempted to dismiss an indictment, arguing that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) barred her prosecution as a coconspirator. Both the district court and the court of appeals rejected this argument, finding that the NPA only bound the Florida USAO and did not preclude the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell for related offenses. The Petitioner was found guilty on multiple counts and sentenced to 240 months imprisonment.
This document is a legal opinion or court order concerning pretrial proceedings related to Maxwell. It addresses motions in limine, pretrial disclosures, and scheduling, citing legal precedents like United States v. Thompson and United States v. Percevault. The Court sets a schedule for disclosures and notes that the S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge.
This document excerpt discusses discovery procedures in a criminal case involving Maxwell, noting the complexity due to decades-old allegations and multiple locations. It highlights the Government's proposed disclosure schedule, providing Maxwell six weeks to review witness statements and mentioning a production of over 20,000 pages of materials on April 13, 2021. The document also addresses Maxwell's request for early disclosure of Rule 404(b) evidence, outlining the prosecutor's obligation to provide notice of intent to use such evidence at least 45 days in advance of trial.
This legal document addresses discovery disputes in a case involving 'Maxwell.' It details Maxwell's motion to compel the Government to produce various types of evidence, including Jencks Act, Brady, and Giglio material. The Court rules that while Maxwell is not entitled to expedited discovery, the parties must confer on a pretrial disclosure schedule, and the Court accepts the Government's assertion that it has already disclosed all required Brady and Giglio material, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents.
This document discusses a court's decision regarding severance of charges and a motion to strike surplusage in a case involving 'Maxwell'. The court favors severing perjury counts from other charges, including Mann Act counts, to ensure a fair and expeditious trial, and declines Maxwell's motion to strike certain allegations from the superseding indictment as premature. The document references several legal precedents including States v. Cunningham, Kross, Gaudin, and United States v. Casamento.
This document discusses the legal complexities surrounding a joint trial for Maxwell, specifically focusing on the potential disqualification of her attorneys due to their involvement as potential witnesses in perjury counts and the civil action. It cites legal precedents from the Second Circuit and District of Nevada regarding attorney testimony and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, highlighting the prejudice Maxwell could face given her attorneys' long-standing representation and familiarity with the case facts.
This legal document discusses perjury charges against Maxwell, concluding that they are legally tenable but should be severed and tried separately from Mann Act counts to avoid undue prejudice. It references legal precedents and argues that Maxwell's statements in a civil case about sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations could have led to the discovery of other evidence or influenced the factfinder, thus supporting the perjury charges.
This document is a legal excerpt, likely from a court order or memorandum, discussing motions filed by 'Maxwell.' The Court addresses Maxwell's arguments for dismissing charges, stating her motion is premature and that determining truth, falsity, and materiality of statements are typically jury functions. The document cites several legal precedents to support the Court's position that Maxwell's statements could be considered material and that her arguments for dismissal are not sufficient at this stage.
This document outlines a legal analysis regarding perjury charges against Maxwell, stemming from her deposition in a civil case. The Court found the perjury charges legally tenable, asserting that Maxwell's defenses should be left to the jury, and that the questions posed were not overly ambiguous to preclude a perjury charge.
This document is a legal ruling or excerpt from a legal ruling concerning a defendant named Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's attempts to dismiss her indictment, stating that she failed to prove her accusers fabricated stories or that the government's delay caused actual prejudice, and that the charges in the S1 superseding indictment are sufficiently specific.
This document discusses legal arguments made by Maxwell to dismiss an indictment, focusing on the unavailability of witnesses and the impact of pretrial publicity. It references the Palm Beach investigation into Epstein and questions the credibility of potential testimony from Epstein himself, while noting that Maxwell's reputation has shifted from Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator.
This document discusses a legal argument regarding the government's delay in bringing charges against 'Maxwell' and whether this delay violated due process. It cites legal precedents from the Supreme Court and other courts. Maxwell argues that the delay prejudiced her defense, specifically mentioning potential witnesses who have died, including Jeffrey Epstein.
| 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 |
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.
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
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, acting as one of Epstein's employees, would call victims to schedule appointments for them to massage Epstein at his Palm Beach Residence.
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Carolyn testified that Maxwell called her to schedule sexualized massages.
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.
Maxwell has been on record since 2009 calling Carolyn for appointments.
Maxwell instructed Kellen on how to schedule massages and manage a part of the criminal scheme that Maxwell had previously handled.
Carolyn named Maxwell as one of two people who would call her to schedule massages with Jeffrey Epstein.
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.
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
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.
Maxwell would call Carolyn to set up appointments for massages, particularly in the first year or two.
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.
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with her as part of the grooming process.
A reply brief filed by the Defendant, Maxwell, which raises an argument about the jury instructions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of a response from the District Court, claiming it resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Maxwell asked Carolyn what she wanted to do in the future, and Carolyn replied that she wanted to become a massage therapist.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity