MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge Sweet
|
Defendant judge |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co named on evidence |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-09-24 | N/A | Filing of Document 60 in Case 1:20-cv-00484-DGC | Court | View |
| 2020-09-23 | N/A | Submission of a defective letter on behalf of the Appellant in US v. Maxwell | New York, NY | View |
| 2020-09-16 | N/A | Filing of Document 38 in Case 20-3061 | Court of Appeals (implied) | View |
| 2020-09-16 | N/A | Filing of Document 37 in Case 20-3061 | Court of Appeals (implied) | View |
| 2020-09-16 | Legal filing | The Government filed a motion to dismiss Maxwell’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and requested ... | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2020-09-10 | Legal filing | Maxwell filed an instant motion to consolidate an appeal with another pending appeal in Giuffre v... | N/A | View |
| 2020-09-10 | Legal filing | Maxwell filed the instant motion to consolidate this appeal with the appeal currently pending in ... | N/A | View |
| 2020-09-10 | Legal filing | Maxwell filed a motion to consolidate this appeal. | N/A | View |
| 2020-09-04 | Legal filing | Maxwell filed a notice of appeal. | N/A | View |
| 2020-09-04 | Legal filing | Maxwell filed a notice of appeal from the Order. | N/A | View |
| 2020-09-03 | Legal filing | Filing of a Notice of Appeal and payment of associated fees for the case US v. Maxwell. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-09-02 | Court ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motion to modify the Protective Order. | N/A | View |
| 2020-09-02 | Court ruling | Judge Nathan issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion. | N/A | View |
| 2020-09-02 | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan issued the Order denying Maxwell's motion. | N/A | View |
| 2020-08-24 | Legal filing | Maxwell filed a reply in further support of her motion. | N/A | View |
| 2020-08-21 | Legal filing | The Government filed an opposition to Maxwell's motion to modify the Protective Order. | District Court | View |
| 2020-08-19 | Legal filing | Maxwell filed a letter motion requesting a stay of the civil action pending her criminal case. | Court | View |
| 2020-08-17 | Legal filing | Maxwell filed a motion before Judge Nathan to modify the Protective Order to allow the use of con... | United States District Court | View |
| 2020-08-17 | Legal filing | Maxwell asked Judge Nathan to modify the Protective Order to allow her to use discovery materials... | District Court | View |
| 2020-08-01 | N/A | Email discussion regarding the unsealing of Ghislaine Maxwell's deposition and legal disputes wit... | N/A | View |
| 2020-07-30 | Court order | Judge Nathan entered a protective order governing the disclosure of information produced in disco... | United States District Court | View |
| 2020-07-30 | Court order | Judge Nathan entered a protective order governing the disclosure of information in the criminal c... | N/A | View |
| 2020-07-14 | Bail hearing | The Initial Bail Hearing for Maxwell, where Judge Nathan heard oral arguments and received statem... | The Court | View |
| 2020-07-14 | Court ruling | Judge Nathan ordered Maxwell detained on the basis of risk of flight following the bail hearing. | The Court | View |
| 2020-07-14 | N/A | Maxwell arraignment, initial conference, bail hearing (referenced in attachment filename) | Southern District of New York | View |
EFTA00013240.pdf
This document is a printout of email metadata dated October 9, 2020. The subject is 'RE: Maxwell', likely concerning the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The email involves multiple recipients within the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS), though their specific identities are redacted. It appears to include an embedded message file.
EFTA00013220.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2020 regarding legal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell. A sender (redacted) forwards a communication from the law firm Cohen & Gresser LLP to another party (redacted), discussing letters received from 'Maxwell's counsel' concerning discovery and prison conditions. The sender proposes a meeting to discuss a draft response expected to be ready by the following Monday.
EFTA00013207.pdf
This document is a heavily redacted email header dated October 30, 2020. The subject line is 'RE: Maxwell Letter' and it includes an embedded message file. The email was blind copied (Bcc) to 'USAHUB-USAJournal111'. The document bears the ID EFTA00013207.
EFTA00013197.pdf
This document is a heavily redacted email dated October 28, 2020. The subject line is 'RE: Call re Maxwell Staffing', suggesting a discussion about staffing related to the Maxwell case (likely Ghislaine Maxwell). The email was blind copied (Bcc) to 'USAHUB-USAJournal111'. The message body text is redacted, but technical metadata including a Message-ID is visible.
EFTA00013171.pdf
This document is an email from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) to defense counsel regarding the case US v. Maxwell (20 Cr. 330). The email, dated September 14, 2021, serves as a cover for an attached discovery letter concerning 'victim disclosures'.
EFTA00011515.pdf
This document is an email dated February 26, 2021, regarding a legal memorandum opposing motions by Ghislaine Maxwell. The sender attaches a draft ('cite-checked omnibus MOL') and outlines the plan for the team and paralegals to proofread, handle discovery references, and manage redactions before filing.
EFTA00011500.pdf
This document is an internal email dated October 1, 2020, regarding legal filings in the Maxwell case. The sender submits a public version of a '16(d) letter' and a 'Local Rule 16.1 affidavit' for review to recipients addressed as 'Chiefs'. The sender and recipients are redacted.
EFTA00011444.pdf
This document is an email sent on January 28, 2021, by an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. The email, with the subject 'Maxwell motions 1 of 3', transmits attachments related to pretrial motions, including a cover letter addressed to Judge Nathan dated January 25, 2021. The sender and recipient identities are redacted.
EFTA00010965.pdf
An email thread from July 2020 between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and unknown recipients regarding the case US v. Maxwell. An Assistant US Attorney provides the grand jury return for a superseding indictment, noting it is unsealed and was presented to Judge Nathan. A subsequent email requests the immediate docketing of the indictment on ECF to ensure notice is given before the defendant's upcoming arraignment.
EFTA00010301.pdf
This document is an email metadata printout dated October 20, 2020. It details correspondence between the FBI (New York field office), NYPD, and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) regarding the 'Maxwell discovery review', likely pertaining to legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell. The specific names of the agents and officials involved are redacted.
EFTA00008513.pdf
A photograph showing a collection of FBI evidence envelopes and folders lying on a floor. Notable items include an envelope labeled 'Maxwell Security footage', a folder containing a 'Certified Copy of Birth Cert' with a redacted name, and envelopes marked as 'GRAND JURY MATERIAL' and 'ELSUR' (Electronic Surveillance). The files bear the case identifier NY-3027571-BJ.
EFTA00008510.pdf
A photograph showing a sealed brown cardboard box sitting on a speckled floor. The names 'EPSTEIN / MAXWELL' are handwritten in black marker on the lower right side of the box's front panel. A Bates stamp or file number 'EFTA00008510' is visible in the bottom right corner of the image.
DOJ-OGR-00000253.tif
This document discusses legal arguments related to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) concerning Epstein, highlighting the government's perceived misinterpretation of the agreement and the findings of an OPR investigation into its execution. It asserts that Maxwell has standing to enforce the NPA as a third-party beneficiary because she falls within the class of 'any potential co-conspirators of Epstein' that the agreement was designed to protect.
DOJ-OGR-00000229.tif
This document details a legal case where a 'Petitioner' attempted to dismiss an indictment, arguing that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) barred her prosecution as a coconspirator. Both the district court and the court of appeals rejected this argument, finding that the NPA only bound the Florida USAO and did not preclude the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell for related offenses. The Petitioner was found guilty on multiple counts and sentenced to 240 months imprisonment.
DOJ-OGR-00000152.tif
This document is a legal opinion or court order concerning pretrial proceedings related to Maxwell. It addresses motions in limine, pretrial disclosures, and scheduling, citing legal precedents like United States v. Thompson and United States v. Percevault. The Court sets a schedule for disclosures and notes that the S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00000151.tif
This document excerpt discusses discovery procedures in a criminal case involving Maxwell, noting the complexity due to decades-old allegations and multiple locations. It highlights the Government's proposed disclosure schedule, providing Maxwell six weeks to review witness statements and mentioning a production of over 20,000 pages of materials on April 13, 2021. The document also addresses Maxwell's request for early disclosure of Rule 404(b) evidence, outlining the prosecutor's obligation to provide notice of intent to use such evidence at least 45 days in advance of trial.
DOJ-OGR-00000147.tif
This legal document addresses discovery disputes in a case involving 'Maxwell.' It details Maxwell's motion to compel the Government to produce various types of evidence, including Jencks Act, Brady, and Giglio material. The Court rules that while Maxwell is not entitled to expedited discovery, the parties must confer on a pretrial disclosure schedule, and the Court accepts the Government's assertion that it has already disclosed all required Brady and Giglio material, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00000144.tif
This document discusses a court's decision regarding severance of charges and a motion to strike surplusage in a case involving 'Maxwell'. The court favors severing perjury counts from other charges, including Mann Act counts, to ensure a fair and expeditious trial, and declines Maxwell's motion to strike certain allegations from the superseding indictment as premature. The document references several legal precedents including States v. Cunningham, Kross, Gaudin, and United States v. Casamento.
DOJ-OGR-00000143.tif
This document discusses the legal complexities surrounding a joint trial for Maxwell, specifically focusing on the potential disqualification of her attorneys due to their involvement as potential witnesses in perjury counts and the civil action. It cites legal precedents from the Second Circuit and District of Nevada regarding attorney testimony and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, highlighting the prejudice Maxwell could face given her attorneys' long-standing representation and familiarity with the case facts.
DOJ-OGR-00000141.tif
This legal document discusses perjury charges against Maxwell, concluding that they are legally tenable but should be severed and tried separately from Mann Act counts to avoid undue prejudice. It references legal precedents and argues that Maxwell's statements in a civil case about sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations could have led to the discovery of other evidence or influenced the factfinder, thus supporting the perjury charges.
DOJ-OGR-00000140.tif
This document is a legal excerpt, likely from a court order or memorandum, discussing motions filed by 'Maxwell.' The Court addresses Maxwell's arguments for dismissing charges, stating her motion is premature and that determining truth, falsity, and materiality of statements are typically jury functions. The document cites several legal precedents to support the Court's position that Maxwell's statements could be considered material and that her arguments for dismissal are not sufficient at this stage.
DOJ-OGR-00000139.tif
This document outlines a legal analysis regarding perjury charges against Maxwell, stemming from her deposition in a civil case. The Court found the perjury charges legally tenable, asserting that Maxwell's defenses should be left to the jury, and that the questions posed were not overly ambiguous to preclude a perjury charge.
DOJ-OGR-00000136.tif
This document is a legal ruling or excerpt from a legal ruling concerning a defendant named Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's attempts to dismiss her indictment, stating that she failed to prove her accusers fabricated stories or that the government's delay caused actual prejudice, and that the charges in the S1 superseding indictment are sufficiently specific.
DOJ-OGR-00000135.tif
This document discusses legal arguments made by Maxwell to dismiss an indictment, focusing on the unavailability of witnesses and the impact of pretrial publicity. It references the Palm Beach investigation into Epstein and questions the credibility of potential testimony from Epstein himself, while noting that Maxwell's reputation has shifted from Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator.
DOJ-OGR-00000134.tif
This document discusses a legal argument regarding the government's delay in bringing charges against 'Maxwell' and whether this delay violated due process. It cites legal precedents from the Supreme Court and other courts. Maxwell argues that the delay prejudiced her defense, specifically mentioning potential witnesses who have died, including Jeffrey Epstein.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| N/A | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Paid | MAXWELL | Court/Government | $750,000.00 | Criminal fine imposed at sentencing. | View |
| 1999-10-19 | Received | Financial Trust C... | MAXWELL | $18,300,000.00 | Transfer sourced from the sale of JP Morgan Ins... | View |
| 1999-10-19 | Received | Financial Trust C... | MAXWELL | $0.00 | Transfer to Maxwell discussed in email; investi... | View |
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell called to schedule massage appointments for Carolyn, who was a minor.
Advice about boyfriends
Maxwell advised Jane that once she has a sexual relationship with a boyfriend, she can always have one again because they are 'grandfathered in'.
Scheduling an appointment to massage Epstein
Maxwell, acting as one of Epstein's employees, would call victims to schedule appointments for them to massage Epstein at his Palm Beach Residence.
Interaction with Epstein
Maxwell directed Juan Alessi to speak to Epstein only when spoken to and not to look him in the eyes.
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Scheduling appointments
Maxwell would call Carolyn to ask if she was available for an appointment, sometimes mentioning that she and Mr. Epstein would be out of town and flying in.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Carolyn testified that Maxwell called her to schedule sexualized massages.
Taking over the house
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
Civil Case Testimony
Testimony given by Maxwell in a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
Massages
Maxwell asked Annie if she had ever received a massage and told her she would have the opportunity to have one, describing how enjoyable it would be.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
Scheduling massages
Maxwell calling Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages when Maxwell was in New York.
Spending time vs Communicating
Witness clarifies distinction between spending physical time vs communicating. States she stopped spending time around age 24.
Reconsideration of response
Seeking reconsideration claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Reply to Government's Opposition
A reply brief cited as "Maxwell Reply at 18" where the Defendant asserts the government failed to prove its case.
Appointments
Maxwell has been on record since 2009 calling Carolyn for appointments.
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
Small talk during massage
making small talk
Legal Review
Review of discovery materials
Request to question Juror 50
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
Epstein's whereabouts
Maxwell informing Carolyn that Epstein was on a jog or would be back soon and that she could go upstairs to set up.
Famous people (e.g., Prince Andrew, Donald Trump)
The witness, Kate, states that Maxwell might be talking on the phone about her famous friends while Kate was present.
Reply brief
A filing titled "Maxwell Reply" is cited, where the Defendant raises an argument in a footnote for the first time.
Staff rules and operation of the Palm Beach residence
A household manual dictated the operation of the Palm Beach residence and included rules for staff, such as to 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing'.
Maxwell's personal life, relationships, and her boyfriend...
Maxwell told Kate 'amazing things' about her boyfriend, describing him as a philanthropist who liked to help young people, and suggested it would be wonderful for Kate to meet him.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity