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-00017183.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the beginning of the government's rebuttal argument in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecutor, Ms. Comey, argues that the case is about Maxwell's crimes against children she targeted for abuse, specifically naming victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie. She dismisses the defense's arguments as attempts to distract the jury and asserts the government's right to respond to them.
DOJ-OGR-00017171.jpg
This document is a summation by Ms. Menninger in a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger argues for reasonable doubt regarding Carolyn's involvement in Count Six, suggesting Carolyn added Ghislaine Maxwell to her story after financial difficulties. The summation also addresses the government's conspiracy theory involving Epstein and Maxwell arranging for underage females to travel to New York for sex acts, clarifying that Carolyn did not travel to New York and Annie Farmer's travel was independent of Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017084.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Moe) summation in a criminal trial, filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor outlines the evidence for Count Five, a sex trafficking conspiracy charge spanning 2000-2004, detailing how the defendant (identified as Maxwell) and co-conspirator Epstein recruited and trafficked victims Carolyn and Virginia Roberts. The prosecutor explains to the jury that they only need to find one instance of agreement and one step taken to carry out the conspiracy to find the defendant guilty.
DOJ-OGR-00017076.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Moe) summation in a criminal trial against a defendant named Maxwell. The prosecutor argues that Maxwell was complicit in crimes with an associate named Epstein, citing her living arrangements in Palm Beach, her knowledge of his preferences, and the millions of dollars she received from him. The prosecutor introduces the legal theory of 'aiding and abetting' as a basis for the jury to find Maxwell guilty on specific counts.
DOJ-OGR-00008990.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 609) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated February 24, 2022. It is the conclusion of a motion filed on behalf of 'Juror 50' requesting that the Court release his Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript under seal to his attorney, the Prosecution, and the Defense. The filing argues that privacy concerns should not prevent Juror 50 from accessing his own documents, which are necessary to comply with a prior order from Judge Nathan regarding an inquiry into the juror's conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008988.jpg
This page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that 'Juror 50' must be allowed to review their own Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript. The filing asserts this review is necessary for the juror to address questions regarding their truthfulness about prior sexual abuse, in compliance with a January 5, 2022 order by Judge Nathan. It cites legal precedents regarding third-party intervention and privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00008985.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 609) from February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues for Juror 50's right to intervene in the action to obtain a copy of his Jury Questionnaire under seal and asserts his right to privacy regarding his history as a sexual assault survivor. The text references an inquiry initiated by Judge Nathan regarding Juror 50's conduct and potential non-disclosure during jury selection, heightened by intense media scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00008984.jpg
This legal document provides the factual background for a motion by 'Juror 50' to intervene in a case. After a verdict on December 29, 2021, Juror 50 gave media interviews alleging personal experience with sexual abuse, which prompted the Defense Counsel to send a letter to Judge Nathan seeking a new trial. The judge subsequently issued an order giving Juror 50 until January 26, 2022, to decide if he wants to be heard on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00008981.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 609) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The filing outlines arguments related to Juror 50's request to intervene and the potential release of their jury questionnaire to counsel under seal. The arguments address jurors' privacy rights, potential criminal exposure, and compliance with a prior order from Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019671.jpg
This is a legal motion filed on October 8, 2020, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., requests permission to file an unredacted reply brief under seal. The motion is part of an appeal concerning a lower court order by Judge Nathan which denied a request to modify a criminal protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00019667.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, arguing on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text requests that the appellate court reverse a district court order denying Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. It references the 'Martindell' legal standard and accuses the government of trying to shield itself from a forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019665.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, likely an appellate brief filed by Ms. Maxwell's defense. It argues that Judge Preska (civil case) is evaluating unsealing documents without knowing critical facts obscured by a criminal protective order overseen by Judge Nathan. The defense contends that unless the order is modified to allow sharing information under seal, Maxwell's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury will be prejudiced by the release of deposition materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019663.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on October 8, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (likely the 2nd Circuit appeal). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell should be allowed to challenge the government's investigative methods before Judge Nathan and that deposition materials should remain sealed to preserve this challenge. The text references a dispute over a protective order and cites Rule 6(e) regarding grand jury witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00019661.jpg
This legal document, page 15 of a filing in Case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, presents arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It contends that her immediate appeal falls within the 'collateral order doctrine' and will not delay her criminal trial, contrary to the government's suggestion. The document also puts forward an alternative request for the appellate court to issue a writ of mandamus, arguing that Judge Nathan abused her discretion in a previous ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00019660.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020. It argues that the government fails to acknowledge that Ms. Maxwell is prohibited by a protective order (upheld by Judge Nathan) from disclosing specific details. These prohibited disclosures include the identity of a 'Recipient,' materials obtained by the government, details about the bulk of the case against her, and why 'Court-2' declined a government request; all specific details regarding these points are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019658.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It states that her reliance on a protective order is justified, especially in the context of a grand jury investigation. The filing also asserts that information about how the government bypassed an individual named Martindell is relevant and that Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate this issue before Judge Nathan is essential for her due process and a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019656.jpg
This page from a legal brief (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review Judge Preska's decision because Judge Nathan's order is unreviewable post-judgment. The text counters the Government's arguments regarding the unsealing of confidential criminal discovery materials and references a previous motion to consolidate cases. Significant portions of the text are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019654.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, argues against the government's position that Ms. Maxwell must wait until after her criminal trial to challenge certain judicial decisions. The filing asserts that the current appeal is the correct and only time to review Judge Preska's unsealing order from a related civil case, as a panel in the criminal case would lack jurisdiction. It also refutes the government's claim that a post-judgment appeal would be an effective remedy for premature unsealing of materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019652.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal brief (likely a reply brief) filed on October 8, 2020, in the case of United States v. Maxwell (Case 20-3061). It argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review Judge Nathan's order regarding a criminal protective order. The text notes that Maxwell is scheduled for trial in July 2021 and explicitly seeks permission to share specific information (which is redacted in the text) with Judge Preska and the appellate court under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00019642.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that Judge Nathan acted within her discretion by denying Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. The filing asserts Maxwell provided no good cause to use criminal discovery materials in a civil case. It contrasts this with the 'Doe case,' which was stayed due to its potential interference with the criminal prosecution, a concern the document claims is not present in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case.
DOJ-OGR-00019640.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order is moot. The text details that Judge Nathan has already authorized Maxwell to inform Judge Preska (under seal) about specific facts learned during criminal discovery regarding government subpoenas, which Maxwell claims is necessary to argue for a stay on unsealing deposition materials. It also notes that Maxwell's criminal charges include allegations of perjury in civil cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019638.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, critiques Ghislaine Maxwell's arguments for keeping criminal discovery materials sealed in her civil cases. The author contends that Maxwell has failed to provide a coherent legal basis for her request and did not adequately explain the relevance of the materials to Judge Nathan. Maxwell's concern is that unsealing the deposition material could prevent her from making future arguments to Judge Nathan regarding alleged government misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
This document is page 24 (PDF page 30) of a legal brief filed by the Government on October 2, 2020. It argues that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion in denying Maxwell's request to modify a Protective Order. The text asserts that Maxwell failed to explain why criminal discovery materials were necessary for pending civil litigation or relevant to First Amendment issues regarding public docketing.
DOJ-OGR-00019636.jpg
This legal document, page 23 of a court filing dated October 2, 2020, argues that Judge Nathan correctly denied a motion by Maxwell. Maxwell sought to use discovery materials from her criminal case in a separate civil litigation, but the judge found her reasons to be "vague, speculative, and conclusory." The document notes that Maxwell had previously consented to a Protective Order prohibiting this and that she was aware the Government had charged her with perjury related to civil cases.
DOJ-OGR-00017299.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case where the judge and counsel discuss how to communicate with a deliberating jury about their schedule. The judge proposes a note asking if the jury wants to deliberate the next day, "December 23rd". After a recess, the court receives a note back from the jury requesting the testimonies of individuals named Jane and Kate Wong.
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...
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.
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.
Sleeping conditions and light surveillance
Requesting the court direct MDC to cease 15-minute light surveillance or justify the need for it.
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.
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 protocols / Eye mask usage
Conveyed MDC's imprecise language stating Maxwell wore an eye mask at night (later corrected to 'non-contraband items').
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.
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.
Maxwell's bail hearing
Judge Nathan heard lengthy oral argument from the parties during the bail hearing.
Bail Hearing
Lengthy oral argument and statements from two victims regarding Maxwell's detention.
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