Judge Nathan
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
15
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
14
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
14
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Judge Preska
|
Business associate |
11
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
Assistant United States Attorney
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Judge Preska
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Professional judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Litigant judge |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial oversight |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Litigant judge |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
The jury
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unknown author
|
Juror judge inferred |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Pete Brush
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan's first decision denying pretrial motions, with a discussion of MV-3 starting on pag... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell intends to argue violation of Martindell before Judge Nathan. | Criminal Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing (likely for Ghislaine Maxwell) | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of temporary release | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of motions to dismiss | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan declined to modify protective order | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's second bail application. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan refused to modify the protective order. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan directed the Government to confer with MDC legal counsel regarding surveillance just... | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing arguments in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan's ruling on bail/release conditions. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Bail Hearings/Decisions | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Maxwell presented a motion to Judge Nathan to modify a Protective Order in her criminal case. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan ruled that Maxwell's arguments to modify a protective order failed to establish good... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan entered a 'challenged Order' denying Maxwell's request to use criminal discovery mat... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's appeal of Judge Nathan's Order in a criminal case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal hearing | A hearing was conducted by Judge Nathan to inquire into errors made by Juror 50 on a jury questio... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | A potential future suppression motion that Maxwell could make before Judge Nathan. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan denied motion to modify criminal protective order. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request for temporary release after analyzing her arguments and pro... | The District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's trial, where a jury's potential bias due to disclosure of civil case material is discus... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial where powerful testimony was heard from victims. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request for bail after considering multiple written submissions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | Judge Nathan issued a written order finding Maxwell poses a flight risk and that temporary releas... | District Court | View |
Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdf
This document is a transcript of an interview, or 'proffer,' of Ghislaine Maxwell conducted by the United States Department of Justice on July 24, 2025. The interview involves legal counsel for Maxwell and various US government representatives, primarily focusing on the terms and conditions of a proffer agreement, emphasizing that it is not a cooperation agreement and outlines the immunity and exceptions related to false statements.
EFTA00038936.pdf
An email dated October 23, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) to an FBI contact regarding the jury selection schedule for an upcoming trial (likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, given the date and Judge Nathan's name). The email attaches a court order summarizing what Judge Nathan reviewed during a recent conference.
EFTA00032796.pdf
This document is an email dated October 19, 2021, from Nicole Simmons of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. to Judge Nathan's chambers in the NYSD. The email serves to submit 'Ms. Maxwell's Motions in Limine' and supporting documents for the case U.S. v. Maxwell (Case No. 20 Cr. 330), done at the request of attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca. The document contains redactions of contact information.
EFTA00032792.pdf
This document contains an email thread from April 2021 between an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) and attorneys Brad Edwards and Brittany Henderson regarding the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell'. The correspondence discusses scheduling for an in-person arraignment before Judge Nathan and a remote bail appeal before the Second Circuit, and inquires about the attendance of Edwards' client.
EFTA00032783.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 22, 2021, concerning the case US v. Maxwell. It details internal communications within the US Attorney's Office (USANYS) regarding a draft response to a defense request for a 120 or 180-day trial adjournment. The chain includes an underlying email from Laura Menninger, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, submitting the motion to Judge Nathan and arguing for the redaction of other clients' names based on attorney-client privilege rules.
EFTA00032757.pdf
This document consists of an internal email chain within the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) dated June 15-16, 2021, discussing the upcoming suppression hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. The correspondence addresses legal strategy, including Maxwell's filing of 12 separate memos of law to evade page limits, and clarifies the identity of Stan Pottinger as a lawyer from Boies Schiller who represented a plaintiff in a related civil action. The emails also reference previous proceedings before Judge Sweet and Judge McMahon.
EFTA00032234.pdf
This document is an email dated August 18, 2020, from Nicole Simmons of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. to Judge Nathan's chambers. The email serves to transmit a sealed Letter Motion, Affidavit, and ten exhibits on behalf of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell regarding a 'Request to Modify Protective Order' in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing was made at the request of attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca.
EFTA00032085.pdf
Internal email thread from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York dated July 22, 2020. The discussion concerns a call from 'Brad' (victims' counsel) regarding a defense motion, with the US Attorney's office maintaining a position of neutrality on whether victims' counsel should file a response. The thread concludes with the circulation of a draft letter to Judge Nathan regarding Local Rule 23.1 (likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case based on the 'GM' filename) for review by senior leadership ('the Brass').
EFTA00032004.pdf
This document contains notes from a conference call on November 25, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel (Sternheim and Everdell). The discussion focuses on Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the MDC, specifically complaints regarding excessive surveillance (cameras, sleep checks every 15 minutes), invasive strip searches, and isolation compared to General Population inmates. Defense counsel explicitly links the extreme surveillance measures to the government's fear of a repeat of the Jeffrey Epstein suicide incident.
EFTA00031993.pdf
This document is an email thread from July 28, 2020, involving US Attorneys (USANYS) and other redacted parties discussing a protective order and a draft affidavit. The correspondence includes an attachment referencing a letter to Judge Nathan regarding 'GM' (likely Ghislaine Maxwell) and an updated protective order. The sender of the original email notes they have not done such an affidavit before and requests suggestions.
EFTA00031986.pdf
This document is an email dated August 2, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney at the Southern District of New York to attorneys Gloria and Mariann Wang. The email alerts them to a recent order by Judge Nathan regarding Local Criminal Rule 23.1, emphasizing its application to attorneys associated with criminal cases, not just counsel of record.
EFTA00031976.pdf
This document is an internal email chain from September 30, 2020, between staff at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The discussion concerns the drafting and editing of a letter to Judge Nathan ('GM letter') regarding discovery from other agencies, likely in relation to the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. The participants exchange versions of the document with minor edits and comments.
EFTA00031962.pdf
This document is an email chain from December 3-4, 2020, between the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) and the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) Brooklyn. The correspondence coordinates the replacement of a hard drive for inmate Ghislaine Maxwell, noting that she had 'recently dropped and broke' her previous one. The emails also discuss technical corrections to a letter addressed to Judge Nathan regarding this matter.
EFTA00031958.pdf
This document is a chain of emails from December 3-4, 2020, between the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (MDC Brooklyn). The correspondence concerns the replacement of a hard drive containing legal materials for Ghislaine Maxwell, which she had 'dropped and broke.' The emails also discuss coordinating a letter to be sent to Judge Nathan, specifically correcting a document that contained visible 'track changes' before submission.
EFTA00031954.pdf
This document is an email chain from December 3-4, 2020, between the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (MDC Brooklyn). The correspondence concerns a replacement hard drive being sent to Ghislaine Maxwell at the detention center because she 'dropped and broke' her previous one. The emails also discuss drafting and correcting a letter to Judge Nathan regarding this incident, specifically addressing 'track changes' left in the draft document.
EFTA00031952.pdf
This document is an email chain from December 4, 2020, involving defense attorney Christian Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP and prosecutors from the US Attorney's Office (USANYS). The correspondence concerns a draft letter regarding a briefing schedule to be sent to Judge Nathan in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The top email indicates approval of the draft ('Fine with me') from one of the recipients.
EFTA00031906.pdf
This document is an email chain from May 28, 2021, regarding the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Christian Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP emailed Judge Nathan's chambers to submit Ms. Maxwell's Omnibus Reply Memorandum in support of supplemental pretrial motions related to the S2 Superseding Indictment. The memorandum was filed under seal, while the cover letter was filed publicly. The email was subsequently forwarded internally within the US Attorney's Office (USANYS).
EFTA00031821.pdf
This document is an email chain from December 2020 between attorney Sigrid McCawley (Boies Schiller Flexner) and redacted recipients (likely prosecutors). The correspondence concerns the filing of a victim impact statement to oppose Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for bail. The email includes the full text of the statement, in which the victim describes Maxwell as a 'psychopath' who sexually abused them as a child, groomed victims for Epstein, and poses a significant flight risk.
EFTA00031210.pdf
An email dated July 28, 2020, with a redacted sender and recipient. The subject is 'draft' and it includes an attachment titled '2020-07-27,_GM_letter_to_Judge_Nathan_re_protective_order.docx', likely referring to a legal filing for Ghislaine Maxwell (GM) addressed to Judge Alison Nathan. The body text is an apology for a delay in editing the document and a request for feedback.
EFTA00031202.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 14-15, 2021, among US Attorney's Office (USANYS) staff coordinating a response to a letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Bobbi Sternheim. The emails reveal urgent internal coordination to meet a 5 PM deadline set by Judge Nathan, discussions about reviewing the draft with the MDC/BOP, and strategic decisions regarding how to address specific points raised by the defense, specifically regarding legal mail and the volume of discovery materials.
EFTA00031115.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 24, 2021, between unidentified legal professionals (likely DOJ prosecutors) regarding legal strategy. They are discussing a request for briefing materials to counter defense counsel's attempt to call numerous agents to testify in an effort to 'impeach the investigation.' One participant notes they are dealing with this same issue in the 'Maxwell' case (Ghislaine Maxwell) and shares a ruling from Judge Nathan (AJN) and relevant motions in limine (MIL).
EFTA00030756.pdf
This document is an email dated December 8, 2020, from attorney Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Nathan. The email serves as a cover letter for the submission of a 'Renewed Bail Motion' and associated exhibits (A-E) in the case of U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed under seal pursuant to a court order.
EFTA00030569.pdf
This document is a formal response from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team regarding 22 specific discovery requests made on October 13, 2020. The government addresses requests for Epstein's diary, the 'Billionaires Playboy Club' manuscript, flight logs (implied in broader requests but not itemized), and the identities of minor victims, often denying immediate production based on Rule 16 restrictions or asserting that materials have already been produced. The letter also discusses the handling of potential 'Brady' and 'Giglio' materials, stating that impeachment evidence will be produced closer to trial.
EFTA00030489.pdf
An email exchange dated August 16, 2021, between personnel at the US Attorney's Office (SDNY). One AUSA requests to see the opposition papers after noting that Judge Nathan denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a Bill of Particulars (BoP). The recipient replies with two attached documents containing the government's opposition to defense motions.
EFTA00030487.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 2020 between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and recipients likely within the BOP/MDC (Nicole McFarland, Sophia Papapetru). The discussion concerns a letter to Judge Nathan regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement conditions. Specific complaints raised include a staff member potentially exposed to COVID-19 continuing to work, a staff member taking unauthorized photos of Maxwell in her cell, and Maxwell's deteriorating mental health due to sleep deprivation and constant surveillance.
Jury Selection Questioning
Questioning during jury selection process.
Nighttime security checks
Complaint that nighttime security checks interfere with ability to prepare for trial; request to modify procedures.
Justification of procedures
Solicited a response regarding surveillance procedures.
Denial of Bail Request
Judge Nathan issued a written opinion (Ex. L) denying Maxwell's request for bail.
Denial of bail application
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion denying Maxwell's bail application.
Follow-up questions
Questions posed to jurors who answered affirmatively to questions 25, 48, or 49.
Bail/Detention arguments
Multiple rounds of briefing and lengthy argument regarding Maxwell's bail status.
Denial of Bail
Denial of application (Ex. H)
Denial of request
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
Request for permission to share information
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Victim Impact Statement
Describing the long-lasting effects of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein, specifically the loss of trust in herself.
Legal Question
A note asking a question about flights or evidence, described as 'decidedly ambiguous' by the judge.
Denial of Bail Application
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion (Ex. H) denying Maxwell's application for bail.
Victim Impact Statement
Describing the psychological impact of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
Sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell
Victim impact statement urging the judge to consider the lack of remorse, the trauma of the trial, and the ongoing suffering of victims when determining the sentence.
Victim Impact Statement regarding Ghislaine Maxwell sente...
Statement describing the trauma of the trial, Maxwell's lack of remorse, and a request for an appropriate prison sentence.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter from Virginia Giuffre's counsel submitting Giuffre's victim impact statement for Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing. The letter requests that the statement be read into the record because Giuffre is unable to attend in person due to a medical issue.
Jury Selection Voir Dire
Judge Nathan welcomes Juror No. 50, explains the presumption of innocence for Ms. Maxwell, and issues instructions regarding avoiding media coverage.
Appropriateness of an inquiry
Invited Juror 50 to address the inquiry into his conduct and the effect of his personal history on deliberations.
Appropriateness of an inquiry into Juror 50
Order addressing the appropriateness of an inquiry into Juror 50's conduct and truthfulness.
Opportunity to be heard
Judge Nathan issued an order giving Juror 50 the opportunity to submit a brief by January 26, 2022, if he wishes to be heard on the issue of an inquiry.
Grounds for a new trial
Defense Counsel sent a letter (ECF #569) to Judge Nathan claiming 'incontrovertible grounds for a new trial' based on Juror 50's interviews and information filed under seal.
Court Order
Order directing an inquiry into Juror 50.
Question regarding Count Four in the US v. Maxwell case
The author of the note asks Judge Nathan for clarification on Count Four, specifically whether the defendant can be found guilty if they aided in transporting 'Jane' when the intent for sexual activity was on Jane's part.
Response of David Oscar Markus in United States v. Maxwel...
Markus submitting a responsive letter to the court via email because he lacks filing privileges in SDNY. He requests it be filed on the public docket.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity