Giuffre

Person

Mentions

178

Relationships

Events

Documents

Relationship Network

Network Depth

Loading... nodes

Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.

23 total relationships

Sort by:

Connected Entity	Relationship Type	Strength (mentions)	Documents	Actions
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL	Legal representative	13 Very Strong	19	View
person MAXWELL	Legal representative	11 Very Strong	28	View
person the defendant	Legal representative	9 Strong	5	View
person Ms. Maxwell	Legal representative	9 Strong	5	View
person MAXWELL	Adversarial	8 Strong	4	View
person Boies Schiller	Client	7	3	View
person Ms. Maxwell	Adversarial	7	3	View
person Boies Schiller	Professional	6	2	View
person Dershowitz	Legal representative	6	2	View
person defendant	Unspecified	6	1	View
person Epstein	Adversarial	6	2	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Victim perpetrator	6	1	View
person the defendant	Accuser accused	6	1	View
location court	Legal representative	5	1	View
person defendant	Perpetrator victim	5	1	View
organization Boies Schiller	Professional	5	1	View
person Epstein	Alleged victim abuser	5	1	View
person Epstein	Alleged victim perpetrator	5	1	View
person ["BSF attorneys"]	Legal representative	5	1	View
organization Boies Schiller	Client	5	1	View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL	Adversarial	5	1	View
person defendant	Acquaintance	5	1	View
person Boies Schiller	Legal representative	1	1	View

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-00003018.jpg

This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is a rebuttal to a defendant's accusation that the Government delayed an indictment for tactical advantage. The author contrasts the Government's decision to stay the civil case of *Doe v. Indyke* with its inaction in the settled case of *Giuffre v. Maxwell*, arguing the different procedural postures and the risk of witness deposition in the active *Doe* case justified the different legal strategies. The document asserts that the Government's actions were logical and not part of a conspiracy to gain an advantage in the criminal case.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003017.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing in which the prosecution (Government) argues against a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss her indictment due to pre-indictment delay. The Government cites several legal precedents (Pierre-Louis, Burke, Carbonaro) to argue that the defendant has failed to show the delay was improper or for a tactical advantage. The document also addresses Maxwell's specific claim that the Government delayed the indictment to benefit from a separate civil litigation involving Giuffre, a claim the Government refutes.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00004806.jpg

This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on July 1, 2021. The order lifts the temporary seal on a previous opinion regarding Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence. It also unseals a memorandum decision, an order, and hearing transcripts from a related civil case, Giuffre v. Maxwell, and orders Maxwell to file these documents on the public docket without redaction by July 2, 2021.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00004791.jpg

This page from a legal filing (Document 307 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated when the Government used her civil deposition testimony in her criminal trial. The text asserts that civil protective orders do not prevent testimony from being used in subsequent criminal proceedings and that Maxwell was free to plead the Fifth during the original civil case but chose not to. It also addresses an argument regarding the law firm BSF turning over transcripts.

Court filing / legal brief (criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00004786.jpg

This page from a 2021 court filing details a February 29, 2016, meeting between the Government (AUSA) and Virginia Giuffre's attorneys, where Maxwell was identified as Epstein's 'head recruiter.' It discusses a protective order issued shortly after that meeting which prevented the sharing of discovery documents with law enforcement without a court order. It also addresses a dispute regarding an alleged second meeting in the summer of 2016, which the Government denies occurred.

Court filing / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00004780.jpg

This is a court order issued on June 25, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order denies Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence and further orders the unsealing of documents from a related civil case, Giuffre v. Maxwell, including a memorandum and transcripts from hearings in March and April 2019. The parties are given a short timeframe to confer and propose redactions to these documents before they are made public.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00005717.jpg

This document is the introduction to a Motion in Limine filed by Ghislaine Maxwell on October 29, 2021, seeking to exclude 'Government Exhibit 52.' The defense argues the exhibit is an unauthenticated, altered compilation of hearsay with no identified author or custodian, originating from lawyers representing Epstein accusers in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil case. The text details physical irregularities in the exhibit, such as inconsistent staple marks and tab shadows, suggesting tampering or cut-and-paste compilation.

Court filing (motion in limine)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019297.jpg

A legal letter dated February 7, 2018, from the law firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, representing intervenor Alan Dershowitz in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case. The letter is addressed to attorneys J. Stanley Pottinger, Paul G. Cassell, Sigrid S. McCawley, and Laura A. Menninger. The correspondence begins an allegation that the plaintiff's counsel improperly leaked submissions from a pending disciplinary proceeding to the Washington Post.

Legal correspondence / letter

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017968.jpg

This document is a page from a Miami Herald article, filed as a court exhibit, detailing Virginia Roberts' (Giuffre) allegations regarding her recruitment by Ghislaine Maxwell at Mar-a-Lago and subsequent trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein. The text describes how Roberts was groomed, forced to recruit other girls, and trafficked to powerful figures for the purpose of blackmail.

News article / court document exhibit

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017805.jpg

This document is a court filing containing a printout of a Miami Herald article detailing allegations by Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The text describes how Roberts was recruited as a teenager at Mar-a-Lago, groomed for sexual purposes, trafficked to various locations, and allegedly used as part of a blackmail scheme involving powerful figures.

Legal exhibit / news article printout

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015539.jpg

This page is from a legal complaint (Case 1:15-cv-07433) filed on September 21, 2015. It outlines allegations of libel against Ghislaine Maxwell, stating she and her agent Gow made false statements with 'actual and deliberate malice' to discredit the plaintiff, Giuffre. The document asserts that these statements damaged Giuffre's professional reputation as the president of a sex trafficking non-profit and falsely accused her of lying about being recruited by Maxwell and abused by Epstein.

Legal filing (civil complaint)

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

Total Received

$0.00

0 transactions

Total Paid

$0.00

0 transactions

Net Flow

$0.00

0 total transactions

No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

As Sender

As Recipient

Total

No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search