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 |
DOJ-OGR-00019401.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 60, Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The filing's primary argument is that Judge Nathan incorrectly refused to modify a protective order, which would have allowed Ms. Maxwell to share sealed material information with Judge Preska. The document outlines the structure of the legal brief, including the case history, jurisdictional statements, and the specific points of the argument.
DOJ-OGR-00019397.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing dated September 23, 2020, related to Case 20-3061. It argues in favor of a motion to consolidate legal proceedings involving Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Giuffre, asserting that consolidation will not cause delay or circumvent Judge Nathan's prior orders. The text emphasizes that the Court has already scheduled oral arguments for both cases on the same day.
DOJ-OGR-00019396.jpg
Page 3 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 23, 2020, arguing against the unsealing of documents. Maxwell's defense contends that unsealing her deposition in a civil case (*Doe v. Indyke*) would prejudice her ability to litigate Fifth Amendment rights in her parallel criminal case before Judge Nathan. The document accuses the government of gamesmanship regarding the stay of proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019388.jpg
This document is page 22 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It contains the conclusion of the Government's argument, signed by AUSA Maurene Comey, requesting that the Court dismiss Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny her motion to consolidate appeals regarding an Order by Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019383.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00019381.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Document 38, Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It argues against an immediate appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell regarding the unsealing of civil case documents. The text contends that any potential prejudice to her criminal trial (due to publicity) can be adequately addressed through a standard appeal after a final judgment, rather than an interlocutory appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019380.jpg
Page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text argues that Maxwell's attempt to appeal Judge Nathan's order regarding pretrial discovery and the unsealing of civil case documents should be denied, citing legal precedents that such orders are generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. It asserts that the risk of embarrassing information being disclosed is insufficient grounds for such an appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019365.jpg
This is the conclusion page (page 22 internal, page 23 of PDF) of a legal filing submitted by Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey on September 16, 2020. The Government argues that Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, her motion to consolidate appeals should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00019364.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion from a defendant named Maxwell to consolidate her criminal and civil appeals. The Government asserts that Maxwell's motion is a strategic attempt to circumvent an order by Judge Nathan that restricts the use of criminal discovery materials in her civil litigation. The filing warns that consolidating the cases would effectively reverse the judge's order without a proper appeal and raises concerns about disseminating sensitive, sealed criminal documents to civil litigants.
DOJ-OGR-00019363.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The Government argues that the Court should deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to consolidate two separate appeals (one civil regarding unsealing, one criminal regarding a protective order). The text asserts that Maxwell's strategy is procedurally improper and attempts to litigate the Government's evidence-gathering methods in the wrong forum.
DOJ-OGR-00019362.jpg
This legal document argues that an appeal by Maxwell should be dismissed because the order in question is not subject to interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. It further argues that Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal case appeal with a separate civil case appeal (Giuffre v. Maxwell) should be denied because the two cases are factually and legally distinct, and the Government has no involvement or interest in the civil matter.
DOJ-OGR-00019358.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against Maxwell's complaint regarding the unsealing of civil case filings. The author contends that any resulting unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case is not a matter for immediate appeal, but rather an issue that can be reviewed and remedied after a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including Hitchcock, Mohawk Indus., United States v. Sabhnani, and United States v. Elfgeeh, to support the position that post-judgment appeals are the proper venue to address concerns of publicity-biased juries.
DOJ-OGR-00019357.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against an interlocutory appeal sought by a party named Maxwell. The author contends that Maxwell's reasons for appeal, related to pretrial discovery and the potential unsealing of documents, do not meet the high legal threshold for an appeal before a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including cases like *United States v. Martoma* and *United States v. Guerrero*, to support its position that the issues are not significant enough to warrant immediate review.
DOJ-OGR-00019356.jpg
This page from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, dated Sept 16, 2020) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The text contends that Judge Nathan's refusal to modify a Protective Order is not an 'immediately appealable collateral order' and does not fall under categories allowing prejudgment appeals in criminal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019349.jpg
This legal document from September 16, 2020, outlines recent court proceedings involving a litigant named Maxwell and Judge Nathan. On September 2, 2020, Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motion, criticizing it as vague and lacking a "coherent explanation" for why criminal discovery materials were needed for her civil cases. Despite the denial, Maxwell was permitted to share some information under seal, and she subsequently filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019322.jpg
This document is a letter from Ms. Maxwell's legal counsel to Judge Loretta A. Preska requesting a temporary stay of the unsealing process and discussing procedural agreements. It outlines proposals to streamline the unsealing process, such as notifying non-parties simultaneously and shortening objection timelines for original parties, while also requesting a 15-page limit for future objections.
DOJ-OGR-00019321.jpg
This is a letter dated August 10, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Laura A. Menninger, to Judge Loretta A. Preska. The letter informs the court about newly discovered information that is critical to both Maxwell's civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) and her separate criminal case. Counsel explains they are currently barred from disclosing this information due to a protective order in the criminal case but intend to seek a modification of that order to share the details with the court.
DOJ-OGR-00019299.jpg
This is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 17) from Case 20-3061, dated September 10, 2020. The text argues against modifying a protective order due to grand jury secrecy but argues that, based on the precedent of Brown v. Maxwell, Ms. Maxwell should be allowed to share information learned from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska. A significant portion of the page is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019298.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing dated September 10, 2020, related to Case 20-3061 (likely an appellate case involving Ghislaine Maxwell). The visible text discusses a dispute over a protective order where the government and Judge Nathan refused to allow Ms. Maxwell to share material facts with Judge Preska under seal. The document is heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019294.jpg
This is a heavily redacted page from a legal document filed on September 10, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The visible text indicates that it is part of 'EXHIBIT F' and states that 'Judge Nathan has now denied that request.' The specific details of the case and the request are obscured by redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00019293.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 10, 2020, discussing the unsealing of deposition materials in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It details procedural history where Maxwell requested a stay on unsealing due to 'critical new information' she could not disclose because of a criminal protective order overseen by Judge Nathan. Judge Preska declined the stay but remained open to reevaluation if Judge Nathan modified the protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00019284.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 20-3061), explains the procedural constraints on Ms. Maxwell due to conflicting court orders. A criminal protective order from Judge Nathan prevents her from sharing critical information with Judge Preska in a related civil case. Consequently, Ms. Maxwell must file a redacted version of her Motion to Consolidate publicly, while the full, unredacted version can only be filed under seal in the criminal appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019282.jpg
This document is a Motion Information Statement filed on September 10, 2020, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case 20-3061, United States v. Maxwell). Attorney Adam Mueller, representing Ghislaine Maxwell, is requesting leave to file an unredacted motion to consolidate under seal. The document indicates that opposing counsel, Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, does not oppose the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00017205.jpg
This document is page 184 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It captures the final moments of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, where she asks the jury to find the defendant guilty of participating in the sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions, starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00017185.jpg
This document is a page from a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey) rebuttal in a criminal trial, filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Comey argues that the defendant was knowingly complicit in a sexual abuse scheme, citing the environment at a Palm Beach house, a list of masseuses used as a 'ruse for sex', and a $30 million payment as evidence of this complicity. She dismisses the defense's arguments about missing evidence as a distraction from the powerful testimony of victims Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie.
Security Protocols
Instruction to ensure Maxwell is subjected only to necessary security protocols based on neutral factors.
Written Decision
Denying Maxwell's request to modify nighttime monitoring schedule.
Denial of request to modify nighttime monitoring
Denied request to modify schedule; noted claims were unsupported by affidavit.
MDC legal counsel's answers regarding flashlight surveill...
Conveyed MDC legal counsel's answers to District Court questions regarding flashlight surveillance policies and Maxwell's specific conditions.
MDC legal counsel's answers regarding flashlight surveill...
Confirmed flashlight checks occur for all inmates; explained frequency differences (15 mins for Maxwell vs 30 mins for SHU vs 1 hour for general pop); justified enhanced monitoring due to safety concerns.
Ms. Maxwell's sleeping conditions
Maxwell submitted a letter to Judge Nathan asking the District Court to address her sleeping conditions by directing the MDC to cease 15-minute light surveillance or justify its necessity.
Sleeping conditions and light surveillance
Requesting the court direct MDC to cease 15-minute light surveillance or justify the need for it.
US v. Maxwell - [Request for 120 or 180-day Adjournment o...
Submission of a Letter Motion for Adjournment of trial and request for redaction of other clients' names based on professional conduct rules.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
The Government informs the Court regarding victim attendance at the upcoming arraignment. Victim-2 will attend by phone; her attorneys David Boies and Sigrid McCawley will attend in person. Victims 1, 3, and 4 will not attend.
Re: Letter re: Electronic Device Permission
Initial request to bring personal electronic devices and equipment into the courthouse for upcoming evidence views.
MDC's imprecise language regarding Maxwell's eye covering
The Government sent a letter to Judge Nathan on April 6, 2021, conveying the MDC's imprecise language about Maxwell wearing an eye mask, an inaccuracy the Government later acknowledged.
MDC protocols / Eye mask usage
Conveyed MDC's imprecise language stating Maxwell wore an eye mask at night (later corrected to 'non-contraband items').
U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) -- Objections...
Submission of letter setting forth Ms. Maxwell's objections to government proposed redactions pursuant to Rule 2(B).
U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) -- Renewed Ba...
Submission of renewed bail motion and exhibits under seal pursuant to court order.
Support for Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application
The author writes to the judge to express support for Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application, attesting to her good character and stating that the person described in criminal charges is not the person they know.
Re discovery from other agencies
Referenced as 'our October 7th letter' (though filename suggests GM sent it, context 'our' might imply the sender is Prosecution referring to their own letter, or referring to the attachment which is GM's letter). Filename clarifies: 'GM_letter_to_Judge_Nathan'.
Authorization to convey facts under seal
Judge Nathan authorized Maxwell to convey facts regarding government subpoenas and court orders to the appropriate judicial officer.
Denial of Maxwell's motion
Judge Nathan issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion to modify a Protective Order.
Proposed redactions and sealing
A sealed letter sent to Judge Nathan regarding proposed redactions and sealing.
Proposed redactions and sealing (docketed)
A docketed letter sent to Judge Nathan regarding proposed redactions and sealing.
Bail Hearing
Lengthy oral argument and statements from two victims regarding Maxwell's detention.
Maxwell's bail hearing
Judge Nathan heard lengthy oral argument from the parties during the bail hearing.
United States v. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Submission of memorandum in support of detention for Ghislaine Maxwell. Mentions filing on ECF and submitting copy to NH Magistrate Judge.
Deliberation Schedule
Asking if the jury wishes to deliberate on Thursday, December 23rd if not finished today.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity