MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged co conspirators |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Victim perpetrator alleged |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
TODD BLANCHE
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Association |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Exploitative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kellen
|
Employee |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional conspiratorial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
victims
|
Criminal |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co conspirators |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Perpetrator victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Denied association |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged co conspirators |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator potential |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Scotty
|
Juror defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
USAO-SDNY
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Farmer
|
Victim perpetrator |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional criminal |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Subjects of investigation |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Criminal association |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirators alleged |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Groomer victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Guiffre
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001-01-01 | Conspiracy / recruitment scheme | Later phase of the scheme where Maxwell and Epstein developed a stream of girls who recruited eac... | Palm Beach residence | View |
| 2000-01-01 | N/A | Transporting Virginia to other states | Various States | View |
| 2000-01-01 | Flight | Virginia Roberts, age 17, was flying with Maxwell and Epstein on Epstein's private jet. | Epstein's private jet | View |
| 2000-01-01 | Recruitment | Maxwell recruited Virginia Roberts. | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| 2000-01-01 | N/A | Sexual Abuse / Pyramid Scheme | Mansions | View |
| 2000-01-01 | N/A | Carolyn's first visit to massage room | Palm Beach massage room | View |
| 2000-01-01 | N/A | Recruiting Virginia Roberts | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| 2000-01-01 | Recruitment and flight | Maxwell recruited Virginia Roberts at Mar-a-Lago. Virginia Roberts, then 17, flew with Maxwell an... | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| 1999-10-19 | N/A | Transfer of $18,300,000 to Maxwell. | JP Morgan | View |
| 1999-01-01 | Financial transaction | Epstein sent Maxwell $18.3 million. | N/A | View |
| 1999-01-01 | Contact | Jane stayed in touch with Epstein and Maxwell after moving to California, until approximately the... | N/A | View |
| 1997-03-20 | Property purchase | Land records show Maxwell purchased the property on Kinnerton Street. | Kinnerton Street | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Social outing | MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie. | New Mexico | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Crime | MAXWELL provided an unsolicited massage to a topless minor. | New York | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Abuse | Conduct involving Minor Victim-2 occurred. | N/A | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Grooming/abuse | Annie Farmer went to New Mexico where Maxwell groomed her for sexual abuse and massaged her breasts. | New Mexico | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Crime | Enticement of a minor to travel for purposes of sexual abuse. | Florida to New York | View |
| 1996-01-01 | N/A | Group sexual encounters involving Jane, Maxwell, and Epstein. | New York and Florida | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Enticement to travel for sexual abuse | Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for the purpose of being sexually a... | Florida to New York | View |
| 1996-01-01 | N/A | Maxwell provided Annie with an unsolicited massage while Annie was topless. | New Mexico | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Unsolicited massage / sexual abuse | MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage while Minor Victim-2 was topless. | New Mexico | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Social outing | MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. | New Mexico | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Assault | MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. | New Mexico | View |
| 1995-01-01 | Exploitation/travel | Maxwell was traveling with and exploiting Jane. | Palm Beach, New York, and N... | View |
| 1995-01-01 | Recruitment and abuse | Maxwell was in contact with Kate, encouraging her to travel to see her and Epstein. During the sa... | Palm Beach, New York, New M... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000132.tif
This document discusses the legislative history and intent behind the PROTECT Act's retroactivity provisions, emphasizing that Congress removed an express retroactivity clause due to constitutional concerns. It cites a Supreme Court case (Stogner v. California) and Senator Leahy's statements to argue that the Act applies to past conduct, like Maxwell's, where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.
DOJ-OGR-00000129.tif
This document is a legal excerpt discussing the application of the PROTECT Act and related statutes of limitations, particularly concerning offenses involving child sexual abuse. It references legal precedents like Weingarten, Schneider, and United States v. Dodge, emphasizing Congress's intent to broadly apply these statutes. The text also addresses Maxwell's contention regarding the applicability of the PROTECT Act to her alleged offenses based on the timing of the conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00000127.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal analysis discussing the interpretation of statutory language, specifically § 3283, and the application of 'categorical' versus 'circumstance-specific' approaches in legal contexts. It references several court cases including United States v. Schneider (2015), Weingarten (865 F.3d at 58), United States v. Morgan (2004), and Nijhawan v. Holder (2009), to support the argument that courts should look beyond bare legal charges to the circumstances of an offense, especially when a statute uses the word 'involves'.
DOJ-OGR-00000125.tif
This document is a legal analysis concerning the timeliness of an indictment, specifically addressing the statute of limitations for charges involving the sexual abuse and kidnapping of minors. It discusses the PROTECT Act of 2003, which extended the limitations period for such offenses, and concludes that the charges against Maxwell and Epstein, including Mann Act charges, are timely under this act because they involve the sexual abuse of minors, with Maxwell allegedly enticing them to travel and Epstein allegedly abusing them.
DOJ-OGR-00000121.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal ruling or report, discussing the scope and binding nature of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Epstein. It addresses the argument that the NPA might bind other judicial districts and concludes that it only binds the U.S. Attorney's office where it was signed, specifically stating it does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00000118.tif
This document details aspects of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) in Florida, where he pleaded guilty to soliciting minors for prostitution and served 18 months in jail. The NPA included a controversial provision where the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to charge Epstein federally or his 'potential co-conspirators,' a point criticized by the OPR as 'poor judgment.' The document also discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's contention that the NPA bars her prosecution as Epstein's co-conspirator, a claim the Court rejects based on Second Circuit precedent and the scope of the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00000117.tif
This document outlines several motions made by 'Maxwell' in a legal proceeding, including motions to dismiss perjury counts, sever counts, strike indictment language, compel discovery, and dismiss all counts related to grand jury indictments. It also states that Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement from September 2007 does not prevent the current prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00000085.tif
This document excerpt discusses a District Court's findings regarding the sentencing of Maxwell, specifically focusing on the application of sentencing guidelines and a leadership enhancement. The court found Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, who was Epstein's 'number two' and 'lady of the house' in Palm Beach, where significant abuse occurred, and noted Maxwell's pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of underaged girls.
DOJ-OGR-00000083.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing or report, discussing legal arguments concerning a defendant named Maxwell. It addresses whether the evidence at trial varied prejudicially from the indictment and concludes that the evidence presented, which included Maxwell transporting 'Jane' to New York for sexual abuse, did not materially differ from the indictment's allegations. The text references legal precedents like United States v. Salmonese and Dove.
DOJ-OGR-00000081.tif
This document details an appeal by Maxwell challenging a District Court's denial related to a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance in an indictment. Maxwell argues that testimony regarding a witness's sexual abuse in New Mexico created a new basis for conviction distinct from the original indictment, and that jury instructions regarding the transportation of 'Jane' for sexual activity constituted a constructive amendment. The document affirms the District Court's denial, citing legal precedents for interpreting the Grand Jury Clause and constructive amendment claims.
DOJ-OGR-00000080.tif
This document outlines legal arguments concerning Maxwell's trial, specifically addressing the District Court's handling of juror selection and a jury note related to Count Four of the Indictment. It discusses whether Maxwell could be found guilty for aiding in Jane's transportation if the intent for sexual activity was not tied to the New Mexico flight, and references a case (United States v. Ianniello) regarding juror questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00000078.tif
This document discusses legal arguments related to the application of statutes of limitations for sexual abuse charges under the PROTECT Act, specifically as it pertains to Maxwell's conduct. It also details Maxwell's appeal for a new trial, arguing that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection deprived her of a fair trial, a motion which the District Court denied. The document cites several legal precedents regarding the definition and application of 'abuse of discretion' in judicial review.
DOJ-OGR-00000077.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing or opinion, discussing the application of a statute of limitations (§ 3283) in a case involving Maxwell. It focuses on whether the 2003 amendment to § 3283, which extended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse and kidnapping offenses, can be applied retroactively to pre-enactment conduct, citing Supreme Court precedent on statutory retroactivity.
DOJ-OGR-00000076.tif
This legal document discusses the denial of Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges related to the sexual abuse of minors, focusing on the application of § 3283. It references the Weingarten v. United States case, which established a 'case-specific approach' for interpreting statutory provisions, and notes that one of the victims is identified as 'Jane'. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Sampson, Weingarten v. United States, United States v. Maxwell, and Taylor v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00000075.tif
This document discusses legal arguments concerning the timeliness of an indictment against Maxwell and the scope of U.S. Attorney's powers. It states that the District Court denied Maxwell's motion, finding that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her. Maxwell also argues that certain counts are untimely and that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations (§ 3283) should not apply to her case.
DOJ-OGR-00000069.tif
This document details the conclusion of a jury trial for Maxwell, who was found guilty on December 29, 2021, of multiple counts including sex trafficking and transportation of a minor for sexual activity, but acquitted on one count. It also highlights a critical issue with Juror 50, who, despite stating in post-verdict interviews that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse, had previously answered 'no' to relevant questions on the jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00000065.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal opinion affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction for 'Maxwell' (presumably Ghislaine Maxwell). It addresses five appellate questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution and if her sentence was procedurally reasonable. The document also lists the attorneys involved for both the Appellee (United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York) and the Defendant-Appellant.
DOJ-OGR-00000061.tif
This document, dated April 10, 2025, is a legal filing arguing for the granting of a petition for certiorari. It highlights a legal dispute regarding the enforceability of a government promise not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators, specifically mentioning Ghislaine Maxwell's prosecution despite such a promise. David Oscar Markus, Counsel of Record from MARKUS/MOSS PLLC, is representing the petitioner.
DOJ-OGR-00000057.tif
This document is a legal analysis discussing principles of statutory interpretation, particularly concerning the meaning of 'United States' in plea agreements. It details how language placement in a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) informs intent, specifically noting how a co-conspirator immunity clause was severed from Epstein's immunity clause and how the NPA's terms may preclude Maxwell's prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00000056.tif
This document discusses legal principles of contract interpretation in the context of plea agreements, citing several court cases. It argues that ordinary contract principles should apply to plea agreements, with a strong emphasis on fairness to the defendant and construing ambiguity against the government, and suggests that the cases of Annabi and Maxwell should be reversed based on these principles.
DOJ-OGR-00000049.tif
This document, likely a legal petition or brief, discusses the reasons for granting a petition filed by 'Maxwell' after an en banc rehearing was denied. It focuses on a circuit split regarding the binding nature of plea agreements made by a U.S. Attorney's office in one district on other U.S. Attorney's offices. The document cites Santobello v. New York as a precedent suggesting that such promises should be binding across different prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00000044.tif
This document outlines the procedural background of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from September 2007, where he agreed to plead guilty to state charges in Florida and serve an eighteen-month sentence, in exchange for the U.S. agreeing not to prosecute him for offenses from 2001-2007 and not to charge potential co-conspirators. It also highlights a legal inconsistency regarding the enforceability of such agreements across different circuit courts, referencing a motion to dismiss by Maxwell that would have been granted under different circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00000041.tif
This document is a 'Table of Authorities—Continued' listing various legal cases, statutes, and rules. It includes multiple 'United States v. Maxwell' cases, one from 2024 and another from 2021, along with other cases like 'United States v. McDowell', 'United States v. O’Doherty', 'United States v. Rubbo', 'United States v. Transfiguracion', 'United States v. Van Thournout', 'United States v. Warner', and 'United States v. Williams', citing their legal references and page numbers within the larger document. It also lists relevant statutes (18 U.S.C. § 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)) and a rule (Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(b)).
DOJ-OGR-00018394.jpg
This is a court transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Kate. Kate testifies that she first traveled to meet Maxwell and Epstein when she was approximately 18, and traveled to see them a total of four or five times. She states that Maxwell was very accommodating and arranged the travel, and confirms that Epstein engaged in sex acts with her during massages at Maxwell's house.
DOJ-OGR-00018393.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Kate. She testifies about giving massages to Epstein, stating that none of them were non-sexual, and that Maxwell would debrief her afterwards. Kate also recounts receiving a Prada handbag as a birthday gift in London from "Ghislaine and Jeffrey."
| 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 |
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.
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.
Carolyn's career aspirations
Maxwell asked Carolyn what she wanted to do in the future, and Carolyn replied that she wanted to become a massage therapist.
Epstein's sexual preferences and needs
Maxwell told the witness, Kate, that Epstein likes 'cute, young, pretty' girls and that he needed to have sex about three times a day. These conversations occurred frequently ('All the time') within the first couple of months after they met.
Travel and an invitation to an island
Maxwell asked Carolyn about her travel history and invited her to an island. Carolyn declined, stating she was too young and her mother would not permit it.
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 massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Scheduling sexualized massages
Maxwell called Carolyn to schedule sexualized massages while Maxwell was in New York.
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.
Reconsideration of response to jury note
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of Judge Nathan's response to the jury's note and raised issues of constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
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.
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
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'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity