MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane
|
Acquaintance |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Friend |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Romantic |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Litigant judge |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Elizabeth
|
Adversarial defendant victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-1
|
Perpetrator victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Adversarial defendant victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Accomplice |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Criminal conspiracy |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Defendant victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Conspirators |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Scotty
|
Juror defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Victim abuser |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Facilitator |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial investigative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Employees
|
Employee |
6
|
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 |
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
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.
Interaction with Epstein
Maxwell directed Juan Alessi to speak to Epstein only when spoken to and not to look him in the eyes.
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'.
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.
Maxwell Reply
A reply brief filed by the Defendant, Maxwell, which raises an argument about the jury instructions.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity