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-00019793.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from Case 21-58, dated March 24, 2021, detailing legal proceedings involving defendant Ghislaine Maxwell from late February to mid-March 2021. It records the filing of Maxwell's third motion for bail, subsequent responses from the U.S. Government (USA), and various letters and motions from both parties regarding pretrial matters and filing deadlines. The document culminates in a detailed order by Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 18, 2021, which addresses disputes over the redaction and sealing of sensitive information in court filings.
DOJ-OGR-00019767.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from Case 21-58, dated March 24, 2021, detailing legal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell. It chronicles filings from late February to mid-March 2021, including Maxwell's third motion for bond, the government's opposition, and various procedural motions and letters. A key event is a March 18, 2021 order by Judge Alison J. Nathan ruling on disputes over the redaction and sealing of sensitive documents, denying the government's request to fully seal an exhibit and ordering the parties to confer on redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00019689.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a court order dated November 9, 2020, regarding Case 20-3061. The court denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to consolidate her appeal with 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' and dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The text largely focuses on legal precedents regarding the 'final judgment rule' and the strict limitations on interlocutory appeals in criminal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019678.jpg
This document is page 2 of an appellate court order dated October 19, 2020, dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The court outlines the 'final judgment rule,' explaining that appeals generally cannot occur until after a final conviction and sentencing, and determines Maxwell's request does not meet the strict criteria for an exception (collateral order). The document cites numerous legal precedents regarding jurisdiction and finality in criminal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019671.jpg
This is a legal motion filed on October 8, 2020, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., requests permission to file an unredacted reply brief under seal. The motion is part of an appeal concerning a lower court order by Judge Nathan which denied a request to modify a criminal protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00019666.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has taken contradictory positions by intervening in one case (Doe v. Indyke) but not another (Giuffre v. Maxwell). The author contends the government's justification is weak and ignores its own arguments for strict confidentiality in a related criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, suggesting the government should logically oppose unsealing filings in the Giuffre case but has failed to do so without explanation.
DOJ-OGR-00019654.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, argues against the government's position that Ms. Maxwell must wait until after her criminal trial to challenge certain judicial decisions. The filing asserts that the current appeal is the correct and only time to review Judge Preska's unsealing order from a related civil case, as a panel in the criminal case would lack jurisdiction. It also refutes the government's claim that a post-judgment appeal would be an effective remedy for premature unsealing of materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019650.jpg
This legal document is an introduction to a brief arguing against the government's position in an appeal. It clarifies that Ms. Maxwell's request is narrow: to share sealed information with Judge Preska and the appellate court about how prosecutors obtained her civil deposition material from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case. The brief suggests this information is crucial for the court's decision on unsealing the material and could impact Ms. Maxwell's ability to litigate in her separate criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019642.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that Judge Nathan acted within her discretion by denying Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. The filing asserts Maxwell provided no good cause to use criminal discovery materials in a civil case. It contrasts this with the 'Doe case,' which was stayed due to its potential interference with the criminal prosecution, a concern the document claims is not present in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case.
DOJ-OGR-00019641.jpg
This legal document discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that unsealing materials from a past civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) would prejudice her current criminal trial. The author refutes this by contrasting her resolved 2017 civil case with another, active case (Doe v. Indyke), arguing the procedural differences justify the Government's different actions in each. The document concludes that unsealing documents in the Giuffre case poses no risk to the Government's criminal case as discovery is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on June 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The judge denies the Defendant's request to redact statements related to victims Annie Farmer, Kate, and Giuffre, ruling that the documents are judicial records subject to public access under the First Amendment. The court argues that the Defendant's concerns do not outweigh the presumption of public access, noting that the Court (as decision-maker) can evaluate the submissions without prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00003109.jpg
This document is page 175 (labeled 148 internally) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It argues legal points regarding perjury counts, specifically discussing materiality standards for false statements in civil depositions and citing case law (Kross, Gaudin, Kungys). The text argues that a jury can follow limiting instructions to separate the substance of Giuffre's allegations from the determination of whether the defendant committed perjury.
DOJ-OGR-00003108.jpg
This legal document is a portion of the prosecution's (the Government's) argument against a defendant's motion to sever perjury counts from other charges. The Government contends that a full re-litigation of a prior defamation action is not necessary and that any potential for 'spillover prejudice' can be managed through stipulations, using a pseudonym for a witness (Giuffre), and providing limiting instructions to the jury. The document cites several legal precedents to support the argument that juries are presumed to follow such instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00003105.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion to sever charges. The prosecution contends that perjury charges from 2016 (Counts Five and Six) are directly connected to earlier charges of victim abuse from 1994-1997 and 1999-2002 (Counts One through Four). The connection is based on the defendant's broad, false denials in 2016 of the very conduct alleged in the earlier counts, including a scheme involving Giuffre, Epstein, and Minor Victim-2.
DOJ-OGR-00003098.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss a perjury charge. The prosecution contends that the defendant's false statements in a deposition for the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil suit were material, as truthful answers could have corroborated claims that the defendant and Epstein recruited Giuffre and could have led to other victims or witnesses. The filing asserts that the issue of materiality is a question for the jury and should not be decided by the court at this stage.
DOJ-OGR-00003095.jpg
This page from a 2021 court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) presents arguments regarding the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) perjury or false statements. It quotes a deposition where the defendant unequivocally denies ever giving anyone a massage, specifically denying giving massages to Mr. Epstein or '[Minor Victim-2].' The government argues that these answers were not ambiguous and that a jury could conclude the defendant lied.
DOJ-OGR-00003089.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 16, 2021, presents an argument that a jury could find the defendant's testimony to be false. The prosecution argues that the defendant, likely Maxwell, falsely claimed to be unaware of any minors at Jeffrey Epstein's properties besides Giuffre, contradicting an indictment alleging interactions with 'Minor Victim-1'. The document refutes the defense's claims that the questions were ambiguous or improper, citing the defendant's own statements that the events in question 'never happened'.
DOJ-OGR-00003086.jpg
This document is page 152 of a legal filing (Document 204) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues against dismissing a perjury count, stating that the defendant's denial of knowledge regarding Epstein's scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages was not due to fundamental ambiguity in the questioning. It includes a transcript excerpt from a deposition where Giuffre's counsel asks the defendant to list girls under 18 she brought to Epstein's house, to which Mr. Pagliuca objects.
DOJ-OGR-00003085.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, presents a transcript of testimony where an unnamed defendant is questioned about their knowledge of a scheme by Jeffrey Epstein to recruit underage girls for sexual massages. The defendant denies knowledge, a statement noted as a charged false statement, while their counsel, Mr. Pagliuca, objects. The document also references a related defamation case where a victim, Giuffre, alleged both Epstein and the defendant sexualized a massage, and notes the Government's intent to use this evidence at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00003080.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, dated April 16, 2021, concerning a defendant's motion to dismiss two counts of perjury. The charges stem from depositions in April and July 2016, where the defendant was ordered to answer questions about her involvement with Epstein and Giuffre in a prior defamation case. The document outlines the court's previous orders and introduces the applicable law for perjury, citing legal standards for determining if a statement is knowingly false.
DOJ-OGR-00003046.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, dated April 16, 2021, which presents an argument against the defendant Maxwell's claim to Fourth Amendment privacy for her deposition transcripts. The text refutes Maxwell's argument by distinguishing her case from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling in *Carpenter*, which concerned the privacy of cell phone location data and surveillance, not deposition testimony given in a civil suit. The document asserts that Maxwell's situation does not fall under the specific privacy protections established in *Carpenter*.
DOJ-OGR-00003034.jpg
This legal document details a ruling by Chief Judge McMahon concerning a government investigation related to a civil lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. The judge concluded that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, did not improperly instigate the government's investigation and, due to "extraordinary circumstances," granted the government's request to access certain materials previously under a protective order. The ruling permitted the Government to share a specific court order with Boies Schiller to aid its investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003033.jpg
This legal document describes a ruling made on April 9, 2019, by Chief Judge McMahon, who granted the Government's application to modify a protective order. The judge analyzed the case using Martindell factors and Second Circuit case law, concluding that while the order was necessary for Giuffre to depose Maxwell, Maxwell's reliance on it to shield information from law enforcement was unreasonable. Ultimately, the judge granted the government's application for modification.
DOJ-OGR-00003025.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, recounts events from 2016 concerning the civil litigation between Giuffre and Maxwell. It details the process of establishing a protective order for discovery materials, initiated by Maxwell's motion on March 2, 2016, contested by Giuffre's counsel (Boies Schiller), and ultimately entered by Judge Robert W. Sweet on March 18, 2016. The document also asserts that the USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell in 2016 and that the government has no record of email communication between AUSA-1 and Boies Schiller attorneys after May 3, 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00003022.jpg
This legal document, filed by the prosecution, refutes the defendant's (Maxwell's) motion which alleges collusion between the law firm Boies Schiller and the U.S. Government. The prosecution argues that the defendant's narrative is false, stating that the perjury investigation began in late 2018, years after the meetings between Boies Schiller and a former AUSA, and that this AUSA had no involvement in the decision to open the investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity