MAXWELL
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane
|
Perpetrator victim |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Abuser victim |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
location
USA
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Co conspirator |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Abuser victim |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Accomplices |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror defendant |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The District Court
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Defendant juror |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Perpetrator victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Abuser victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Acquaintance |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-4
|
Perpetrator victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Acquaintance |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Groomer victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Sarah Kellen
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-11-10 | N/A | US V Maxwell TRIAL proceedings | Court | View |
| 2021-10-21 | N/A | Telephone Conference held by Judge Nathan (Subject line implies 'Tomorrow' relative to 21st, but ... | Telephone Conference | View |
| 2021-10-18 | Legal deadline | The deadline to prepare and submit additional filings (motions in limine). | N/A | View |
| 2021-10-11 | N/A | Deadline for Government to disclose all Jencks Act and Giglio material. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2021-08-27 | N/A | Administration of the Maxwell Juror Questionnaire | Unknown | View |
| 2021-08-13 | N/A | Judge Nathan denied all of Maxwell's supplemental motions and an ex parte motion for Rule 17 subp... | Court | View |
| 2021-08-13 | Court ruling | The Court denied Maxwell's motion to obtain relief specified in her supplemental pre-trial motion... | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-08-11 | N/A | A voice message from an unavailable name was received and forwarded through an agency/organizatio... | Unknown | View |
| 2021-07-12 | Trial | Scheduled commencement date for the trial. | United States District Court | View |
| 2021-06-25 | N/A | Filing of Document 307 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | US District Court (SDNY imp... | View |
| 2021-06-25 | N/A | Court ruling denying Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence. | Court | View |
| 2021-06-25 | N/A | Filing of Document 307 | Court Docket | View |
| 2021-05-27 | Legal filing | Filing of a legal document arguing for the denial of Maxwell's motion. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-05-27 | N/A | Maxwell filed a 'renewed motion' under the same docket as her initial appeal. | Appellate Court | View |
| 2021-05-27 | N/A | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's bail applications. | District Court | View |
| 2021-05-17 | Legal filing | Maxwell filed a renewed motion for pretrial release. | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-29 | Legal action | Maxwell submitted a letter to Judge Nathan regarding her sleeping conditions at the MDC. | District Court | View |
| 2021-04-29 | N/A | Judge Nathan issued an order on the docket in Maxwell's case directing the MDC to take certain st... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-04-29 | N/A | Canceled: Hold for Maxwell witness meetings | Unknown | View |
| 2021-04-27 | Court ruling | The Court affirmed Judge Nathan's bail decisions and denied Maxwell's motion for pretrial release. | Court | View |
| 2021-04-27 | Legal ruling | The Court affirmed Judge Nathan's orders denying Maxwell's pretrial release and denied her motion... | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-16 | N/A | Filing of Document 207 | Court Record | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Court ruling | The Court issued an opinion denying the Defendant's pretrial motions as premature. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal proceeding | The Court issued an Opinion & Order, the reasoning of which is used to deny Maxwell's current mot... | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 207 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00015136.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, describes Ghislaine Maxwell's role in facilitating sexual abuse with Jeffrey Epstein, including recruiting vulnerable girls and paying them for "massages." It details the timeline of Maxwell's unsuccessful post-trial motions in early 2022, which were largely denied by Judge Nathan. The document concludes by noting Maxwell's sentencing hearing on June 28, 2022, where the government sought a sentence of at least 360 months.
DOJ-OGR-00015135.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, summarizes the evidence from Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, which concluded on December 29, 2021, with her conviction on five counts. It details testimony from four victims (Jane, Kate, Annie, Carolyn) and other evidence establishing Maxwell's instrumental role in Jeffrey Epstein's decade-long scheme to sexually abuse underage girls. The document also references post-trial motions, appeals, and the separate dismissal of perjury charges against Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00015129.jpg
A legal letter dated August 6, 2025, from attorney Robert S. Glassman to the SDNY Victim and Witness Coordinator regarding the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. Glassman, representing a 'Jane Doe' victim, joins a previous letter submitted by Annie Farmer's attorney and strongly opposes the release of any information that identifies victims, requesting redactions if materials are released.
DOJ-OGR-00015110.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330, argues against the unsealing of materials related to the convicted individual, Maxwell. It outlines the victims' concerns, citing Maxwell's recent transfer to a lower-security prison, her access to a public platform through individuals like Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the government's failure to consult victims, and a growing fear of clemency. The filing asserts that these developments are causing re-traumatization for the survivors and disregard their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
DOJ-OGR-00015107.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 6, 2025, argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to Epstein and Maxwell's criminal scheme, advocating for the redaction of victims' names while opposing similar protection for third-party enablers. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum and several civil cases, asserting that transparency and accountability necessitate the release of information concerning individuals involved in sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00015091.jpg
This legal document argues against the release of grand jury transcripts in the pending case of Maxwell. The author contends that secrecy is necessary to protect still-living witnesses, including active law enforcement personnel and alleged victims. The document also refutes the government's cited precedent, the Rosenberg case, arguing it is inapplicable because it involved a decades-old, concluded case, unlike Maxwell's ongoing one.
DOJ-OGR-00015088.jpg
This legal document discusses the government's attempt to unseal grand jury transcripts, citing historical interest. The document argues that the release would affect Maxwell's privacy interests and that the government's motion should be denied due to ongoing litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00015082.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 4, 2025, is a submission from the U.S. Government to judges Berman and Engelmayer regarding the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The government discusses legal precedents for grand jury secrecy, notes that Epstein's death is a relevant factor, and details its ongoing efforts to notify all victims before the information is released. The filing is submitted by U.S. Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi, Deputy AG Todd Blanche, and U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.
DOJ-OGR-00015081.jpg
This legal document, dated August 4, 2025, is a letter from the Government to Judges Richard M. Berman and Paul A. Engelmayer. It outlines the submission of grand jury materials related to the Epstein and Maxwell cases, including the dates the respective grand juries met. The Government discusses the process of identifying publicly available information from these materials and presents a legal argument that a 'nolle prosequi' in the Epstein case does not prevent the court from disclosing sealed records.
DOJ-OGR-00015073.jpg
This document is page 2 of a Court Order filed on July 31, 2025, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer orders the identification of specific information in grand jury transcripts and authorizes the Government to publicly file a redacted letter responding to the order. The document also references the civil litigation case Giuffre v. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00015068.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses whether to release grand jury materials related to Epstein and Maxwell. It argues that the current status of the principals (Epstein deceased, Maxwell incarcerated) and their families should be considered, and notes that much of the information is already public through Maxwell's trial and civil litigation initiated by victims.
DOJ-OGR-00015066.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the disclosure of grand jury materials. It outlines legal factors for consideration, noting that Defendant Epstein is deceased and cannot respond, while Defendant Maxwell intends to. The document emphasizes the strong public interest in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as in the related investigations by the Department of Justice and FBI, as a justification for the disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00015063.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the Government (Department of Justice) on July 29, 2025 (per header), responding to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for balancing transparency with the obligation to protect victims and cites Second Circuit case law allowing the release of grand jury records under 'special circumstances.' A footnote notes a Circuit split and mentions that Judge Robin L. Rosenberg previously denied a similar request in the Southern District of Florida regarding 2005 and 2007 Epstein records.
DOJ-OGR-00015056.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying defendant Maxwell's request for full access to the grand jury transcripts from her case. The court finds she has not demonstrated a particularized need for the materials, as required by law. However, the court has ordered the government to produce the transcripts for a private (in camera) review by July 28, 2025, after which the court may provide excerpts to Maxwell's counsel if deemed necessary.
DOJ-OGR-00015050.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on July 22, 2025, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order notes that the Court has not received submissions from either defendant Maxwell or the victims regarding a proposed disclosure. A deadline of Tuesday, August 5, 2025, is set for both parties to submit letters outlining their respective positions.
DOJ-OGR-00015049.jpg
This document is a court order directing the Government to file a memorandum of law and specific Maxwell grand jury materials by July 29, 2025. The memorandum must address factors related to its application, including counsel's review of transcripts and victim notification, and be filed in both redacted and unredacted forms. Additionally, the Government is ordered to submit various Maxwell grand jury transcripts and related exhibits under seal to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00015040.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the U.S. Attorney General's office, arguing that the Court should release grand jury transcripts from the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The motion contends that public interest, coupled with the diminished privacy interests following Epstein's death, justifies this release, despite Maxwell's case being pending before the Supreme Court.
DOJ-OGR-00014873.jpg
This legal document addresses Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable, detailing evidence of her involvement in transporting Jane for sexual abuse in New York and other conduct in New Mexico. It references allegations that Epstein and Maxwell groomed victims. The document concludes that Maxwell was not unfairly prejudiced and that her above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment was procedurally reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00014870.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by allowing testimony about a sexual abuse incident in New Mexico, claiming this constituted a constructive amendment to her indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The appellate court is reviewing this claim and affirms the District Court's denial, outlining the legal standards for what constitutes a constructive amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing, discusses the District Court's response to a jury note during deliberations in a case against Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight from New Mexico, not the initial flight where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too complex, and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00014868.jpg
This legal document discusses the application of Rule 33 motions concerning juror responses during voir dire, referencing the McDonough standard. It details the District Court's finding that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberately incorrect and that Maxwell did not challenge other jurors with similar disclosures. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Gambino and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, to support its legal arguments regarding the standard for overturning trial results based on juror honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
This document is a page from a judicial opinion concerning an appeal by a defendant named Maxwell. The court is reviewing the District Court's decision to deny Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The basis for Maxwell's motion was that 'Juror 50' failed to accurately answer questions on a jury questionnaire about a personal history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell argues deprived her of a fair and impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014866.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the 2003 PROTECT Act's amendment to § 3283 should be applied retroactively. The document asserts that Congress's intent was to eliminate the statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses, even for conduct that occurred before the law was enacted, and therefore it applies to the conduct of an individual named Maxwell as charged in an indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing an appeal by Maxwell, who argues that Counts Three and Four of her indictment are untimely. She contends the offenses do not fall under the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283 and that a 2003 amendment to the statute cannot be retroactively applied. The court disagrees on both points, affirming the District Court's decision to deny her motion to dismiss and citing precedent from 'Weingarten v. United States'.
DOJ-OGR-00014863.jpg
This legal document argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts, a principle established since 1789. It contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell, citing legal precedent (Annabi) and statutes (28 U.S.C. § 547 and § 515) to support its position on prosecutorial jurisdiction.
| 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 |
Legal Review
Review of discovery materials
Scheduling an appointment for Carolyn
Carolyn's mom would receive a phone call, which Carolyn later learned was from Maxwell, and would hand the phone to Carolyn to schedule an appointment.
Small talk during massage
making small talk
Instruction to undress
She told me to get undressed.
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.
Reconsideration of the District Court's response
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of a response from the District Court, claiming it resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
Scheduling an appointment for Carolyn
Shawn would receive a phone call from Maxwell and would then tell Carolyn that she had a phone call and instruct her to say yes to the appointment.
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.
Scheduling massage appointments
The question implies that Maxwell would call Carolyn to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein, even after learning she was 14.
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.
Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal
A brief cited as "Maxwell Br. at 30" where the Defendant requests a judgment of acquittal on all counts.
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.
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 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.
Massage
MAXWELL sent an unsolicited message to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless.
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.
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.
Taking over the house
Maxwell told Juan Alessi that she was taking over the house right away when she arrived.
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.
Request to question Juror 50
Renewing request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity