Giuffre
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Unspecified |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim perpetrator |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Accuser accused |
6
|
1 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Boies Schiller
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged victim abuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged victim perpetrator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
["BSF attorneys"]
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Boies Schiller
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Production of documents in Giuffre v. Maxwell civil litigation | Civil Court | View |
| N/A | Legal appeal | An appeal by Ms. Maxwell addressing an order by Judge Preska unsealing certain deposition materia... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | Judge Preska's decision unsealing the deposition material in Giuffre v. Maxwell. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Giuffre moved to compel Maxwell to answer additional questions she had previously declined to ans... | district court | View |
| N/A | Deposition | Maxwell gave testimony in a deposition in a civil suit. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Giuffre v. Maxwell | this Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An appeal is currently pending in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. | 2d Cir. | View |
| N/A | Recruitment | The defendant recruited Giuffre to Epstein's Palm Beach property under the guise of hiring her as... | Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Civil suit of Giuffre v. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Lawsuit | A lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell, cited as Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal discovery | A bitter, hard-fought, and wide-ranging discovery process spanning over a year, which included do... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A district court entered a stipulated Protective Order to handle the confidential nature of the d... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal settlement | The case between Giuffre and Maxwell settled before trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | A defamation case where Giuffre alleged she was a victim of a scheme and that Epstein and the def... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's motion to consolidate the appeal in her criminal case with the appeal in the Giuffre v.... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Judge Preska's order unsealing civil litigation materials in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Appeal of Judge Preska's unsealing order in the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. | This Court | View |
| N/A | Motion to compel | Giuffre moved to compel Maxwell to answer additional intimate and personal questions that she had... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | A lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell, which involved a bitter, hard-fought, and wide-ranging dis... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Discovery process in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case, which included large document productions, resp... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Appeal of Judge Preska's order unsealing civil deposition material in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court order | A Protective Order was entered in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, prohibiting the sharing of conf... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-11-25 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221599, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, ... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-09-09 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 2020 WL 5439623, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2020) is ci... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Legal proceeding | A memorandum decision and order on the Government's application to modify a protective order in G... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002353(2).jpg
This document is Page 6 of a legal filing (Motion to Suppress) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). Maxwell's defense argues that Counts Five and Six (perjury charges) should be dismissed because they rely on evidence obtained through an unlawful grand jury subpoena that violated a Protective Order in the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The document asserts the government proceeded 'ex parte' to avoid contestation.
DOJ-OGR-00002353(1).jpg
This document is a legal motion filed on February 4, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team seeking to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena and to dismiss perjury charges (Counts Five and Six). The defense argues that the government unlawfully circumvented a Protective Order from the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* by issuing a subpoena and proceeding *ex parte* to prevent the accuracy of their representations from being contested. The recipient of the subpoena and specific details of the government's arguments are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002352(3).jpg
This document is the 'Table of Exhibits' page (page 5 of 23) from a legal filing (Document 134) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists nine exhibits (A through I), including a Civil Protective Order, a Giuffre Protective Order Proposal, and two transcripts from 2019. Exhibits C, F, G, H, and I are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002352(2).jpg
This document is a Table of Exhibits from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists several exhibits, including a Civil Protective Order, a 'Giuffre Protective Order Proposal,' and transcripts from March and April 2019, with other exhibits being fully redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002352(1).jpg
This document is page 5 of 23 from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 4, 2021. It serves as a Table of Exhibits listing items A through I. While Exhibits A, B, D, and E refer to protective orders (specifically mentioning Giuffre) and 2019 transcripts, Exhibits C, F, G, H, and I are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002350.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases from various U.S. courts, including District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and cover a range of civil and criminal matters.
DOJ-OGR-00002350(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the larger document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and involve various individuals and corporate entities.
DOJ-OGR-00002349.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 134) in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. The filing argues that the court should suppress evidence obtained from a prior civil case, 'Giuffre v. Maxwell', and dismiss certain counts because 'The Government' allegedly circumvented a protective order and violated due process. At a minimum, the filing requests a hearing to investigate the government's alleged misrepresentations.
DOJ-OGR-00019621.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal by Maxwell. The argument is based on the 'final judgment rule' (28 U.S.C. § 1291), asserting that the order being appealed is not a final decision and does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. The document notes that the Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on similar grounds on September 16, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019602.jpg
This legal document is a filing in Ms. Maxwell's civil appeal, arguing against an order by Judge Preska to unseal her deposition. The core argument is that unsealing the deposition would prejudice her ability to properly litigate the government's conduct (the 'Martindell' issue) before Judge Nathan in her separate criminal case. The document refutes the government's characterization of her argument, stating she is not asking the appeals court to rule on the merits of the criminal case issue, but rather to preserve the status quo to protect her Fifth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00019587.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in which Ms. Maxwell requests permission from the court to be excused from publicly filing a redacted version of 'Appendix Volume 2'. The justification is that the appendix and related briefs contain confidential information shielded by a criminal protective order. The filing connects this request to two ongoing appeals she has filed: one against an order by Judge Nathan and another against an order by Judge Preska in the related case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, with a consolidated oral argument scheduled for October 13.
DOJ-OGR-00019434.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, argues that the government strategically chose not to intervene to prevent the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's depositions. The filing suggests this inaction allows the government to later claim any violation of a prior ruling was harmless. It supports its argument by citing legal precedents, such as 'Louis Vuitton' and 'SEC v. Boock', which warn of the dangers for defendants who waive their Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00019429.jpg
This legal document describes the predicament of Ms. Maxwell, who is involved in both a civil and a criminal case presided over by two different judges, Judge Preska and Judge Nathan. A protective order in the criminal case, issued by Judge Nathan, prevents her from sharing relevant information with Judge Preska in the civil case. Her requests to both judges to resolve this issue have been denied, placing her in what the document calls a 'Catch-22 situation'.
DOJ-OGR-00019418.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that an appeal concerning Judge Nathan's order should proceed. The author contends that the appeal is separate from an ongoing criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, will not cause delays, and that waiting for the criminal trial to conclude would render the issue moot. The document references a stay on Judge Preska's order to unseal deposition material as a reason for the current proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019415.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in an appeal related to the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The author argues that appealing Judge Preska's decision to unseal deposition material will be moot after a final judgment. The stated purpose of the appeal is to share redacted information, which Ms. Maxwell learned, with Judge Preska.
DOJ-OGR-00019413.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing from September 24, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's appeals. It outlines the procedural posture of two related appeals: one regarding Judge Preska's order unsealing deposition materials in the civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell), and the current appeal regarding Judge Nathan's denial of a motion to modify a criminal protective order. Maxwell has moved to consolidate these two appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00019373.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that an appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It cites the 'Collateral Order Doctrine' and legal precedent, such as the final judgment rule from Title 28, Section 1291 of the U.S. Code, to support the argument that appellate review is generally not permitted until a final judgment is rendered. The context is a motion filed by Maxwell on September 10, 2020, to consolidate appeals, one of which relates to the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
DOJ-OGR-00019362.jpg
This legal document argues that an appeal by Maxwell should be dismissed because the order in question is not subject to interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. It further argues that Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal case appeal with a separate civil case appeal (Giuffre v. Maxwell) should be denied because the two cases are factually and legally distinct, and the Government has no involvement or interest in the civil matter.
DOJ-OGR-00019350.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that an appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It cites the 'final judgment rule' from Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which generally prohibits appeals until a final decision is made on the merits of a case. The filing emphasizes that this policy against 'piecemeal' appeals is particularly strong in criminal law, referencing several Supreme Court precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00019345.jpg
This document is a 'Statement of Facts' from a legal filing dated September 16, 2020, concerning the case against Maxwell. It outlines the timeline of events in mid-2020, including the filing of a sealed indictment on June 29, Maxwell's arrest on July 2, and the filing of a superseding indictment on July 8 in the Southern District of New York. The document specifies the six counts Maxwell is charged with, all related to the enticement and transportation of minors for illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00019321.jpg
This is a letter dated August 10, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Laura A. Menninger, to Judge Loretta A. Preska. The letter informs the court about newly discovered information that is critical to both Maxwell's civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) and her separate criminal case. Counsel explains they are currently barred from disclosing this information due to a protective order in the criminal case but intend to seek a modification of that order to share the details with the court.
DOJ-OGR-00019300.jpg
This document is the conclusion page of a legal filing dated September 10, 2020, from the law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. On behalf of their client, Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, the attorneys request that the court consolidate two separate cases: United States v. Maxwell (Case No. 20-3061) and Giuffre v. Maxwell (Case No. 20-2413).
DOJ-OGR-00019289.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell on September 10, 2020, requesting the consolidation of two appeals. The first is from her criminal case (United States v. Maxwell) and the second is from a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell). Maxwell argues the cases are intertwined because new information from the criminal case is relevant to the court's decision to unseal deposition material in the civil case.
DOJ-OGR-00019276.jpg
This legal document is an 'Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance' filed on September 10, 2020, by attorney Laura A. Menninger of the firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. Menninger formally enters her appearance as lead counsel for the defendant-appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Docket No. 20-3061). The filing confirms the accuracy of case details, provides counsel's contact information, lists related cases, and certifies Menninger's admission to practice before the court.
DOJ-OGR-00019817.jpg
This document is a legal docket summary from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, chronicling court filings and orders from February 23 to March 18, 2021. The entries detail the procedural battle over Maxwell's third motion for bail and other pretrial motions, including the setting of deadlines, the granting of extensions, and a detailed order from Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the redaction and sealing of sensitive information in court documents. The log illustrates the ongoing legal maneuvering between Maxwell's defense team and the U.S. Government prosecutors.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity