Relationship Details

This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. The order addresses the rights of victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to be heard at sentencing. The court grants the request for three individuals, Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre, to make oral statements at the sentencing, noting that the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, does not object to their inclusion.

This document is a legal filing (page 122 of 239) by the Government opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss Counts Five and Six. The Government argues that suppression is unwarranted because the contested materials, specifically Maxwell's 2016 deposition transcripts, were already unsealed in civil litigation by Judge Preska and affirmed by the Second Circuit, making them subject to 'inevitable discovery.' Footnote 42 discusses the defendant's failed attempt to modify a protective order to use criminal discovery materials in her civil case.

This is a page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The text argues that Judge Preska erred by ignoring Ghislaine Maxwell's 'reliance argument.' It states that Maxwell did not plead the Fifth Amendment during her depositions because she relied on a civil protective order and the *Martindell* precedent, which protects witness testimony from being used by the Government for criminal investigations or perjury charges.

This document is page 17 of a legal filing from September 2020, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempts to consolidate a civil appeal with issues related to her criminal case. The text argues that Maxwell is prematurely trying to challenge the Government's evidence-gathering methods (subpoenas) in the appellate court before Judge Nathan has had the opportunity to rule on them in the District Court criminal trial.

This document is page 3 of a Second Circuit Court of Appeals order dated November 9, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The court dismisses Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order due to lack of jurisdiction, denies her petition for a writ of mandamus, and denies her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case *Guiffre v. Maxwell*. The court cites various precedents to establish that the protective order does not fall under the 'collateral order exception' and that Maxwell failed to prove exceptional circumstances.

This court document outlines the procedural history of the civil litigation between Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell, including deposition dates in 2016 and a settlement in 2017. It details how the USAO-SDNY formally opened its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and co-conspirators in late November 2018, explicitly crediting Julie K. Brown's reporting in the Miami Herald as the catalyst. The document also clarifies that a specific prosecutor, 'AUSA-1', was not involved in opening this 2018 investigation.

This is a legal filing (Page 2 of 4) dated August 4, 2025, submitted by the Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer regarding the unsealing of documents in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government addresses Court orders requiring them to identify specific grand jury exhibits and transcripts for public release, noting that trial exhibits are presumptively public. The Government requests an extension until August 8, 2025, to advise the Court on its position regarding the unsealing of grand jury exhibits.

This document is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is being treated unfairly because she is barred from sharing information sealed under a criminal protective order with judicial officers in her civil unsealing proceedings (presided over by Judge Preska). The brief asserts that the district court erred and abused its discretion by declining to modify the protective order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).

This document is a page from a 2021 court filing detailing the procedural history regarding the unsealing of documents in the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil case. It describes Magistrate Judge Netburn's 2019 denial of a Government application to modify a protective order, citing a lack of compelling need, and notes the subsequent reassignment of the case to Judge Preska, who ordered materials unsealed in July 2020.

This document is page 8 of a defense filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 4, 2021, arguing that Virginia Giuffre's defamation claims against Ghislaine Maxwell were based on lies and that Giuffre attempted to shift the focus to being 'sexually trafficked' by Epstein to third parties. It details the legal history of Maxwell's depositions and a protective order granted to shield confidential information from a 'media circus.' A footnote references a concurrent lawsuit between Giuffre and Alan Dershowitz, noting Dershowitz filed evidence suggesting Giuffre and her lawyers fabricated stories.

This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, arguing procedural impropriety regarding how the government obtained Ghislaine Maxwell's confidential civil deposition transcripts. It details that a protective order in 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' specifically excluded language allowing sharing information with law enforcement, yet the government somehow obtained these sealed transcripts to indict Maxwell for perjury. The text questions the legality of the government's acquisition of these documents.

This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Motion to Suppress) from February 4, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government made untrue representations regarding a redacted source who was instrumental in the prosecution and provided information before the investigation began. The text asserts that Maxwell would not have agreed to civil depositions in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case without the Protective Order, and argues the court should suppress the fruits of the government's misrepresentation, specifically the perjury counts arising from those depositions.

This is a page from a legal filing dated August 17, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The document discusses the government's ex parte applications dating back to February 2019, Maxwell's arrest on July 2, 2020, and the superseding indictment filed on July 8, 2020, which alleges she facilitated Epstein's abuse of minors and committed perjury in 2016. A footnote details the timeline of discovery materials being transferred to the defense counsel.

This document is page 8 (filed as Page 9 of 15 in Document 17) of a legal filing dated September 10, 2020. It argues for the consolidation of two appeals involving Ghislaine Maxwell: one regarding the unsealing of deposition material in her civil case (Judge Preska) and another regarding a protective order in her criminal case (Judge Nathan). The text asserts that consolidation is required for efficiency and fairness.