MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Author/Speaker
|
Abusive controlling |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-2
|
Abusive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kellen
|
Associative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juan Alessi
|
Witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Employee |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional interaction |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Collaborative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Abusive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Narrator
|
Victim perpetrator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Associative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The district court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
This Court
|
Litigant court |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirators alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Adversarial accused victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial defendant prosecution |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co involvement in criminal activity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Abusive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 |
| 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 |
EFTA00013240.pdf
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.
EFTA00013220.pdf
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.
EFTA00013207.pdf
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.
EFTA00013197.pdf
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.
EFTA00013171.pdf
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'.
EFTA00011515.pdf
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.
EFTA00011500.pdf
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.
EFTA00011444.pdf
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.
EFTA00010965.pdf
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.
EFTA00010301.pdf
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.
EFTA00008513.pdf
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.
EFTA00008510.pdf
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000253.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000229.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000152.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000151.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000147.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000144.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000143.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000141.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000140.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000139.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000136.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000135.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000134.tif
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 |
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.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
Request to question Juror 50
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
Maxwell Reply
A reply brief filed by the Defendant, Maxwell, which raises an argument about the jury instructions.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Interaction with Epstein
Maxwell directed Juan Alessi to speak to Epstein only when spoken to and not to look him in the eyes.
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.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
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 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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity