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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-01-01 | Legal case | Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2017-01-01 | Legal settlement | The Giuffre v. Maxwell litigation was resolved. | N/A | View |
| 2017-01-01 | Legal case | The civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell, which was resolved in 2017. The only remaining issue is the de... | N/A | View |
| 2017-01-01 | Legal settlement | The parties (Giuffre and Maxwell) settled a defamation claim and the case was dismissed. | N/A | View |
| 2017-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Discovery in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell finished. | N/A | View |
| 2016-03-18 | Legal ruling | Judge Sweet entered a protective order governing discovery and dissemination of confidential info... | N/A | View |
| 2016-03-04 | Legal proceeding | Boies Schiller, on behalf of Giuffre, represented that they did not oppose a protective order but... | N/A | View |
| 2015-09-21 | N/A | Filing of Document 1 in Case 1:15-cv-07433 | Court (implied) | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Legal filing | Giuffre, represented by Boies Schiller, filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 1999-01-01 | Abuse / criminal scheme | Abuse of Giuffre and a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages. | N/A | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity