MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
plaintiff
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial litigant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Criminal exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Abuser victim alleged |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Accomplice |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Guiffre
|
Litigation opponent |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Social |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Victim perpetrator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Litigant judiciary |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David
|
Juror and defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Defendant and accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional exploitative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew A. Rohrbach
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed victim (speaker)
|
Abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Groomer victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Elizabeth
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Alleged giver recipient |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Morgan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
her counsel/lawyer
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
This Court
|
Litigant court |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Victim perpetrator implied |
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 |
DOJ-OGR-00015136.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, describes Ghislaine Maxwell's role in facilitating sexual abuse with Jeffrey Epstein, including recruiting vulnerable girls and paying them for "massages." It details the timeline of Maxwell's unsuccessful post-trial motions in early 2022, which were largely denied by Judge Nathan. The document concludes by noting Maxwell's sentencing hearing on June 28, 2022, where the government sought a sentence of at least 360 months.
DOJ-OGR-00015135.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, summarizes the evidence from Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, which concluded on December 29, 2021, with her conviction on five counts. It details testimony from four victims (Jane, Kate, Annie, Carolyn) and other evidence establishing Maxwell's instrumental role in Jeffrey Epstein's decade-long scheme to sexually abuse underage girls. The document also references post-trial motions, appeals, and the separate dismissal of perjury charges against Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00015129.jpg
A legal letter dated August 6, 2025, from attorney Robert S. Glassman to the SDNY Victim and Witness Coordinator regarding the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. Glassman, representing a 'Jane Doe' victim, joins a previous letter submitted by Annie Farmer's attorney and strongly opposes the release of any information that identifies victims, requesting redactions if materials are released.
DOJ-OGR-00015110.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330, argues against the unsealing of materials related to the convicted individual, Maxwell. It outlines the victims' concerns, citing Maxwell's recent transfer to a lower-security prison, her access to a public platform through individuals like Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the government's failure to consult victims, and a growing fear of clemency. The filing asserts that these developments are causing re-traumatization for the survivors and disregard their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
DOJ-OGR-00015107.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 6, 2025, argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to Epstein and Maxwell's criminal scheme, advocating for the redaction of victims' names while opposing similar protection for third-party enablers. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum and several civil cases, asserting that transparency and accountability necessitate the release of information concerning individuals involved in sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00015091.jpg
This legal document argues against the release of grand jury transcripts in the pending case of Maxwell. The author contends that secrecy is necessary to protect still-living witnesses, including active law enforcement personnel and alleged victims. The document also refutes the government's cited precedent, the Rosenberg case, arguing it is inapplicable because it involved a decades-old, concluded case, unlike Maxwell's ongoing one.
DOJ-OGR-00015088.jpg
This legal document discusses the government's attempt to unseal grand jury transcripts, citing historical interest. The document argues that the release would affect Maxwell's privacy interests and that the government's motion should be denied due to ongoing litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00015082.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 4, 2025, is a submission from the U.S. Government to judges Berman and Engelmayer regarding the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The government discusses legal precedents for grand jury secrecy, notes that Epstein's death is a relevant factor, and details its ongoing efforts to notify all victims before the information is released. The filing is submitted by U.S. Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi, Deputy AG Todd Blanche, and U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.
DOJ-OGR-00015081.jpg
This legal document, dated August 4, 2025, is a letter from the Government to Judges Richard M. Berman and Paul A. Engelmayer. It outlines the submission of grand jury materials related to the Epstein and Maxwell cases, including the dates the respective grand juries met. The Government discusses the process of identifying publicly available information from these materials and presents a legal argument that a 'nolle prosequi' in the Epstein case does not prevent the court from disclosing sealed records.
DOJ-OGR-00015073.jpg
This document is page 2 of a Court Order filed on July 31, 2025, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer orders the identification of specific information in grand jury transcripts and authorizes the Government to publicly file a redacted letter responding to the order. The document also references the civil litigation case Giuffre v. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00015068.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses whether to release grand jury materials related to Epstein and Maxwell. It argues that the current status of the principals (Epstein deceased, Maxwell incarcerated) and their families should be considered, and notes that much of the information is already public through Maxwell's trial and civil litigation initiated by victims.
DOJ-OGR-00015066.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the disclosure of grand jury materials. It outlines legal factors for consideration, noting that Defendant Epstein is deceased and cannot respond, while Defendant Maxwell intends to. The document emphasizes the strong public interest in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as in the related investigations by the Department of Justice and FBI, as a justification for the disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00015063.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the Government (Department of Justice) on July 29, 2025 (per header), responding to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for balancing transparency with the obligation to protect victims and cites Second Circuit case law allowing the release of grand jury records under 'special circumstances.' A footnote notes a Circuit split and mentions that Judge Robin L. Rosenberg previously denied a similar request in the Southern District of Florida regarding 2005 and 2007 Epstein records.
DOJ-OGR-00015056.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying defendant Maxwell's request for full access to the grand jury transcripts from her case. The court finds she has not demonstrated a particularized need for the materials, as required by law. However, the court has ordered the government to produce the transcripts for a private (in camera) review by July 28, 2025, after which the court may provide excerpts to Maxwell's counsel if deemed necessary.
DOJ-OGR-00015050.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on July 22, 2025, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order notes that the Court has not received submissions from either defendant Maxwell or the victims regarding a proposed disclosure. A deadline of Tuesday, August 5, 2025, is set for both parties to submit letters outlining their respective positions.
DOJ-OGR-00015049.jpg
This document is a court order directing the Government to file a memorandum of law and specific Maxwell grand jury materials by July 29, 2025. The memorandum must address factors related to its application, including counsel's review of transcripts and victim notification, and be filed in both redacted and unredacted forms. Additionally, the Government is ordered to submit various Maxwell grand jury transcripts and related exhibits under seal to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00015040.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the U.S. Attorney General's office, arguing that the Court should release grand jury transcripts from the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The motion contends that public interest, coupled with the diminished privacy interests following Epstein's death, justifies this release, despite Maxwell's case being pending before the Supreme Court.
DOJ-OGR-00014873.jpg
This legal document addresses Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable, detailing evidence of her involvement in transporting Jane for sexual abuse in New York and other conduct in New Mexico. It references allegations that Epstein and Maxwell groomed victims. The document concludes that Maxwell was not unfairly prejudiced and that her above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment was procedurally reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00014870.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by allowing testimony about a sexual abuse incident in New Mexico, claiming this constituted a constructive amendment to her indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The appellate court is reviewing this claim and affirms the District Court's denial, outlining the legal standards for what constitutes a constructive amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing, discusses the District Court's response to a jury note during deliberations in a case against Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight from New Mexico, not the initial flight where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too complex, and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00014868.jpg
This legal document discusses the application of Rule 33 motions concerning juror responses during voir dire, referencing the McDonough standard. It details the District Court's finding that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberately incorrect and that Maxwell did not challenge other jurors with similar disclosures. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Gambino and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, to support its legal arguments regarding the standard for overturning trial results based on juror honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
This document is a page from a judicial opinion concerning an appeal by a defendant named Maxwell. The court is reviewing the District Court's decision to deny Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The basis for Maxwell's motion was that 'Juror 50' failed to accurately answer questions on a jury questionnaire about a personal history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell argues deprived her of a fair and impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014866.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the 2003 PROTECT Act's amendment to § 3283 should be applied retroactively. The document asserts that Congress's intent was to eliminate the statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses, even for conduct that occurred before the law was enacted, and therefore it applies to the conduct of an individual named Maxwell as charged in an indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing an appeal by Maxwell, who argues that Counts Three and Four of her indictment are untimely. She contends the offenses do not fall under the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283 and that a 2003 amendment to the statute cannot be retroactively applied. The court disagrees on both points, affirming the District Court's decision to deny her motion to dismiss and citing precedent from 'Weingarten v. United States'.
DOJ-OGR-00014863.jpg
This legal document argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts, a principle established since 1789. It contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell, citing legal precedent (Annabi) and statutes (28 U.S.C. § 547 and § 515) to support its position on prosecutorial jurisdiction.
| 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 |
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.
Scheduling massages with Jeffrey Epstein
Carolyn named Maxwell as one of two people who would call her to schedule massages with Jeffrey Epstein.
Culture of silence
Maxwell directed employees at Epstein's households to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing' regarding the sexual abuse that occurred.
Spending time vs Communicating
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
Small talk during massage
making small talk
Reconsideration of response
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Request to question Juror 50
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
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.
Legal Review
Review of discovery materials
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.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity