MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane
|
Perpetrator victim |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Abuser victim |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
location
USA
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Abuser victim |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Accomplices |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror defendant |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The District Court
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Defendant juror |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Perpetrator victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Abuser victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Acquaintance |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Perpetrator victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Acquaintance |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Groomer victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Sarah Kellen
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trip | The witness, A. Farmer, visited a ranch, took a tour of the property, and stayed in a small resid... | the ranch | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Maxwell's Fourth Amendment motion is being challenged on the grounds that she lacks standing. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Civil litigation | A prior civil litigation where a third-party law firm represented Maxwell's adversary. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's application for bail. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Phone call | Maxwell called Carolyn's mom, who then handed the phone to Carolyn to schedule an appointment. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Phone call | Maxwell called Shawn, who then relayed the message to Carolyn to accept an appointment. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | The District Court denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss the indictment. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal appeal | Maxwell appeals the District Court's denial of her motion, arguing a constructive amendment to he... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Lawsuit | Witness A. Farmer sued Maxwell and Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Deposition | The Maxwell depositions, which sought highly intrusive personal evidence, took place. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The trial of Maxwell, where testimony was presented that mirrored the life experiences of Juror 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Maxwell seeks to dismiss the Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or to compel the Government ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Traumatic experience | The speaker experienced traumatizing events over a three-year period. | New York and Florida | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The District Court found that Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, leading to a four-level leadership... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Sexual abuse | Maxwell encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein, which resulted in Epstein sexual... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | Maxwell's trial, during which certain aspects of the grand jury transcript became public. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Grooming | MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3. | London, England | View |
| N/A | Incident | Incidents occurred while the witness, Jane, was 14, during which Maxwell was present in the room. | a room | View |
| N/A | Incident | Incidents occurred while the witness, Jane, was 16, during which Maxwell was present in the room. | a room | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan concluded that Maxwell presented a risk of flight and that her proposed bail package... | Court | View |
| N/A | Sexual abuse | Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3 during massages that MAXWELL encouraged. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Information exchange | Carolyn gave her cell phone number, her mom's cell phone number, and Shawn's home phone number to... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal finding | The District Court found that Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, applying a four-level leadership e... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Meeting | The witness, Kate, saw Epstein and Maxwell multiple times. The frequency was sporadic, about five... | London | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000132.tif
This document discusses the legislative history and intent behind the PROTECT Act's retroactivity provisions, emphasizing that Congress removed an express retroactivity clause due to constitutional concerns. It cites a Supreme Court case (Stogner v. California) and Senator Leahy's statements to argue that the Act applies to past conduct, like Maxwell's, where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.
DOJ-OGR-00000129.tif
This document is a legal excerpt discussing the application of the PROTECT Act and related statutes of limitations, particularly concerning offenses involving child sexual abuse. It references legal precedents like Weingarten, Schneider, and United States v. Dodge, emphasizing Congress's intent to broadly apply these statutes. The text also addresses Maxwell's contention regarding the applicability of the PROTECT Act to her alleged offenses based on the timing of the conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00000127.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal analysis discussing the interpretation of statutory language, specifically § 3283, and the application of 'categorical' versus 'circumstance-specific' approaches in legal contexts. It references several court cases including United States v. Schneider (2015), Weingarten (865 F.3d at 58), United States v. Morgan (2004), and Nijhawan v. Holder (2009), to support the argument that courts should look beyond bare legal charges to the circumstances of an offense, especially when a statute uses the word 'involves'.
DOJ-OGR-00000125.tif
This document is a legal analysis concerning the timeliness of an indictment, specifically addressing the statute of limitations for charges involving the sexual abuse and kidnapping of minors. It discusses the PROTECT Act of 2003, which extended the limitations period for such offenses, and concludes that the charges against Maxwell and Epstein, including Mann Act charges, are timely under this act because they involve the sexual abuse of minors, with Maxwell allegedly enticing them to travel and Epstein allegedly abusing them.
DOJ-OGR-00000121.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal ruling or report, discussing the scope and binding nature of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Epstein. It addresses the argument that the NPA might bind other judicial districts and concludes that it only binds the U.S. Attorney's office where it was signed, specifically stating it does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00000118.tif
This document details aspects of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) in Florida, where he pleaded guilty to soliciting minors for prostitution and served 18 months in jail. The NPA included a controversial provision where the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to charge Epstein federally or his 'potential co-conspirators,' a point criticized by the OPR as 'poor judgment.' The document also discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's contention that the NPA bars her prosecution as Epstein's co-conspirator, a claim the Court rejects based on Second Circuit precedent and the scope of the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00000117.tif
This document outlines several motions made by 'Maxwell' in a legal proceeding, including motions to dismiss perjury counts, sever counts, strike indictment language, compel discovery, and dismiss all counts related to grand jury indictments. It also states that Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement from September 2007 does not prevent the current prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00000085.tif
This document excerpt discusses a District Court's findings regarding the sentencing of Maxwell, specifically focusing on the application of sentencing guidelines and a leadership enhancement. The court found Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, who was Epstein's 'number two' and 'lady of the house' in Palm Beach, where significant abuse occurred, and noted Maxwell's pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of underaged girls.
DOJ-OGR-00000083.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing or report, discussing legal arguments concerning a defendant named Maxwell. It addresses whether the evidence at trial varied prejudicially from the indictment and concludes that the evidence presented, which included Maxwell transporting 'Jane' to New York for sexual abuse, did not materially differ from the indictment's allegations. The text references legal precedents like United States v. Salmonese and Dove.
DOJ-OGR-00000081.tif
This document details an appeal by Maxwell challenging a District Court's denial related to a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance in an indictment. Maxwell argues that testimony regarding a witness's sexual abuse in New Mexico created a new basis for conviction distinct from the original indictment, and that jury instructions regarding the transportation of 'Jane' for sexual activity constituted a constructive amendment. The document affirms the District Court's denial, citing legal precedents for interpreting the Grand Jury Clause and constructive amendment claims.
DOJ-OGR-00000080.tif
This document outlines legal arguments concerning Maxwell's trial, specifically addressing the District Court's handling of juror selection and a jury note related to Count Four of the Indictment. It discusses whether Maxwell could be found guilty for aiding in Jane's transportation if the intent for sexual activity was not tied to the New Mexico flight, and references a case (United States v. Ianniello) regarding juror questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00000078.tif
This document discusses legal arguments related to the application of statutes of limitations for sexual abuse charges under the PROTECT Act, specifically as it pertains to Maxwell's conduct. It also details Maxwell's appeal for a new trial, arguing that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection deprived her of a fair trial, a motion which the District Court denied. The document cites several legal precedents regarding the definition and application of 'abuse of discretion' in judicial review.
DOJ-OGR-00000077.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing or opinion, discussing the application of a statute of limitations (§ 3283) in a case involving Maxwell. It focuses on whether the 2003 amendment to § 3283, which extended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse and kidnapping offenses, can be applied retroactively to pre-enactment conduct, citing Supreme Court precedent on statutory retroactivity.
DOJ-OGR-00000076.tif
This legal document discusses the denial of Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges related to the sexual abuse of minors, focusing on the application of § 3283. It references the Weingarten v. United States case, which established a 'case-specific approach' for interpreting statutory provisions, and notes that one of the victims is identified as 'Jane'. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Sampson, Weingarten v. United States, United States v. Maxwell, and Taylor v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00000075.tif
This document discusses legal arguments concerning the timeliness of an indictment against Maxwell and the scope of U.S. Attorney's powers. It states that the District Court denied Maxwell's motion, finding that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her. Maxwell also argues that certain counts are untimely and that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations (§ 3283) should not apply to her case.
DOJ-OGR-00000069.tif
This document details the conclusion of a jury trial for Maxwell, who was found guilty on December 29, 2021, of multiple counts including sex trafficking and transportation of a minor for sexual activity, but acquitted on one count. It also highlights a critical issue with Juror 50, who, despite stating in post-verdict interviews that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse, had previously answered 'no' to relevant questions on the jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00000065.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal opinion affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction for 'Maxwell' (presumably Ghislaine Maxwell). It addresses five appellate questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution and if her sentence was procedurally reasonable. The document also lists the attorneys involved for both the Appellee (United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York) and the Defendant-Appellant.
DOJ-OGR-00000061.tif
This document, dated April 10, 2025, is a legal filing arguing for the granting of a petition for certiorari. It highlights a legal dispute regarding the enforceability of a government promise not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators, specifically mentioning Ghislaine Maxwell's prosecution despite such a promise. David Oscar Markus, Counsel of Record from MARKUS/MOSS PLLC, is representing the petitioner.
DOJ-OGR-00000057.tif
This document is a legal analysis discussing principles of statutory interpretation, particularly concerning the meaning of 'United States' in plea agreements. It details how language placement in a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) informs intent, specifically noting how a co-conspirator immunity clause was severed from Epstein's immunity clause and how the NPA's terms may preclude Maxwell's prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00000056.tif
This document discusses legal principles of contract interpretation in the context of plea agreements, citing several court cases. It argues that ordinary contract principles should apply to plea agreements, with a strong emphasis on fairness to the defendant and construing ambiguity against the government, and suggests that the cases of Annabi and Maxwell should be reversed based on these principles.
DOJ-OGR-00000049.tif
This document, likely a legal petition or brief, discusses the reasons for granting a petition filed by 'Maxwell' after an en banc rehearing was denied. It focuses on a circuit split regarding the binding nature of plea agreements made by a U.S. Attorney's office in one district on other U.S. Attorney's offices. The document cites Santobello v. New York as a precedent suggesting that such promises should be binding across different prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00000044.tif
This document outlines the procedural background of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from September 2007, where he agreed to plead guilty to state charges in Florida and serve an eighteen-month sentence, in exchange for the U.S. agreeing not to prosecute him for offenses from 2001-2007 and not to charge potential co-conspirators. It also highlights a legal inconsistency regarding the enforceability of such agreements across different circuit courts, referencing a motion to dismiss by Maxwell that would have been granted under different circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00000041.tif
This document is a 'Table of Authorities—Continued' listing various legal cases, statutes, and rules. It includes multiple 'United States v. Maxwell' cases, one from 2024 and another from 2021, along with other cases like 'United States v. McDowell', 'United States v. O’Doherty', 'United States v. Rubbo', 'United States v. Transfiguracion', 'United States v. Van Thournout', 'United States v. Warner', and 'United States v. Williams', citing their legal references and page numbers within the larger document. It also lists relevant statutes (18 U.S.C. § 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)) and a rule (Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(b)).
DOJ-OGR-00018394.jpg
This is a court transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Kate. Kate testifies that she first traveled to meet Maxwell and Epstein when she was approximately 18, and traveled to see them a total of four or five times. She states that Maxwell was very accommodating and arranged the travel, and confirms that Epstein engaged in sex acts with her during massages at Maxwell's house.
DOJ-OGR-00018393.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Kate. She testifies about giving massages to Epstein, stating that none of them were non-sexual, and that Maxwell would debrief her afterwards. Kate also recounts receiving a Prada handbag as a birthday gift in London from "Ghislaine and Jeffrey."
| 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 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.
Interaction with Epstein
Maxwell directed Juan Alessi to speak to Epstein only when spoken to and not to look him in the eyes.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Carolyn testified that Maxwell called her to schedule sexualized massages.
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'.
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 sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
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.
Appointments
Maxwell has been on record since 2009 calling Carolyn for appointments.
Taking over the house
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
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.
Civil Case Testimony
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
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.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity