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-00010670.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated June 22, 2022, from attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Nathan regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter submits the victim impact statement of Virginia Giuffre, who details being trafficked and abused by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein from the age of 16. Giuffre's statement directly blames Maxwell for spotting her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 and introducing her to Epstein, thereby 'opening the door to hell'.
DOJ-OGR-00010668.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Document 674) from June 2022, containing a victim impact statement addressed to the court. The anonymous author, a 45-year-old survivor with 19 years of sobriety, details the long-term psychological effects of Ghislaine Maxwell's abuse, including panic attacks and dissociation. The author expresses gratitude to the judge, jury, and prosecutors following their testimony in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010666.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Document 674) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 24, 2022. It contains a victim impact statement submitted by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Nathan. The statement describes the professional and emotional toll of the trial on the victim, criticizes Maxwell's lack of remorse and refusal to admit guilt, and urges the judge to consider the ongoing suffering of the victims during sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00010607.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 672) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated June 24, 2022. It is a Victim Impact Statement written by a 45-year-old woman who testified at the trial, detailing the long-term psychological effects of the abuse she suffered, including substance use disorder and PTSD. The author expresses gratitude to the court, the prosecutors, the jury, and Judge Nathan for the fair execution of the trial and the opportunity to seek justice.
DOJ-OGR-00010604.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court filing (Document 672) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, submitted by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley. It contains a victim impact statement (likely from a testifying witness) describing the 'retraumatization' caused by the trial process, cross-examination, and Maxwell's refusal to admit guilt. The author urges Judge Nathan to consider the ongoing suffering of the victims and their families when determining Maxwell's prison sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00010414.jpg
This document is a letter from the United States Attorney to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter concerns the government's motion for the exclusion of time for Counts Seven and Eight under the Speedy Trial Act until June 28, 2022, the scheduled date of sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00020380.jpg
This legal document from May 27, 2021, argues that a renewed motion for Ghislaine Maxwell's release should be denied. It supports Judge Nathan's prior ruling that Maxwell is a flight risk and asserts that no new "compelling" reason has been presented to overturn the decision. The document also details Maxwell's extensive access to legal discovery materials and communication with her attorneys while in custody at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00014680.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between Judge Nathan and counsel (Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim) regarding a scheduling note to be sent to the deliberating jury about December 23rd. Subsequently, the jury sends a note requesting testimony transcripts for witnesses identified as Jane, Wong, and Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00014584.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the final sentences of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, urging the jury to find the defendant guilty of sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions (The Charge), specifically starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00014565.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey's) rebuttal in a criminal trial, likely against Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues that the jury should rely on the powerful and consistent testimony of multiple victims, as sexual abuse crimes rarely produce documentary evidence. She highlights that three separate victims gave similar accounts of the defendant touching their breasts and using massage as a prelude to sexual abuse, which serves as strong corroboration of guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014564.jpg
This document is a page from a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey) rebuttal in a criminal trial, filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor argues that the defendant was knowingly complicit in a sexual abuse scheme, citing a list of masseuses, a Palm Beach house, and a $30 million payment characterized as 'we-molested-kids-together money'. The prosecutor urges the jury to focus on the powerful testimony of victims like Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie, and dismisses the defense's arguments about missing evidence as a distraction.
DOJ-OGR-00014562.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically the beginning of the government's rebuttal argument delivered by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Comey refocuses the jury on Maxwell's specific alleged crimes, mentioning victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie by name, and argues that the defense is attempting to distract from the evidence presented by her colleague, Ms. Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00014550.jpg
This document is a transcript of a closing argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues for Maxwell's acquittal on 'Count Six', which relates to an accuser named Carolyn, by attacking Carolyn's credibility and claiming she never traveled to New York as alleged. The attorney also distances Maxwell from any involvement in the travel of another individual, Annie Farmer, to undermine the government's broader conspiracy theory involving Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020379.jpg
This document is a page from a government legal filing (Case 21-58) responding to Ghislaine Maxwell's complaints regarding her incarceration conditions at the MDC. The text refutes Maxwell's claims of sewage flooding by clarifying that the cited precedent (Tiffany Days) occurred at the MCC, not the MDC. Additionally, it counters her claim of 'solitary confinement' by detailing her 13-hour daily access to a day room equipped with computers, a phone, and a TV, while noting she requires protective custody for her safety.
DOJ-OGR-00020377.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to an appeal by Maxwell regarding her pretrial confinement conditions. The Government argues that Maxwell's complaints about disruptive nighttime flashlight checks are unsubstantiated and do not demonstrably interfere with her trial preparation. The document also refutes Maxwell's accusations of misrepresentation, clarifying a statement made by Government counsel and explaining an acknowledged inaccuracy in information received from the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00020375.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court order denying a renewed motion by an individual named Maxwell for temporary release from confinement. The court relies on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided a compelling reason, such as new evidence or a change in law, to justify reversing its prior decision. The court also dismisses Maxwell's arguments concerning a recent letter briefing and a written order by Judge Nathan, affirming the previous finding that Maxwell is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020374.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a 'renewed motion' from a defendant named Maxwell is meritless. It cites legal precedents (United States v. Hochevar, Stack v. Boyle) and procedural rules to assert that the motion is not properly before the court. The document further states that a lower court judge, Judge Nathan, did not err in previously finding three times that Maxwell is a flight risk and denying bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) discusses the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The text argues that MDC's nighttime security protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation and notes procedural errors in Maxwell's filing of a 'renewed motion' rather than a new appeal or proper motion in District Court. It cites Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the untimeliness of the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00020370.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's motion should be denied. It details Judge Nathan's previous findings that MDC's security protocols—specifically regarding night monitoring and eye coverings—do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation. The document affirms that previous denials of bail and release have been upheld.
DOJ-OGR-00020369.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court filing dated May 27, 2021, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). It details the Government's response regarding Maxwell's request for an eye mask and a dispute over nighttime flashlight checks. Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request to modify the monitoring schedule on May 14, 2021, noting that Maxwell's claims were unsupported by an affidavit and that flashlight checks are standard procedure for all inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00020368.jpg
This document page, part of a legal filing from May 2021, details the Government's response to Judge Nathan regarding 'flashlight surveillance' of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. It explains that while general population inmates are checked hourly and SHU inmates every 30 minutes, Maxwell is checked every 15 minutes due to an 'enhanced security schedule' and 'heightened safety and security concerns,' despite not being on suicide watch.
DOJ-OGR-00020367.jpg
This legal document outlines the procedural history of a case involving a defendant named Maxwell. After Maxwell appealed two of Judge Nathan's bail decisions and was denied pretrial release on April 27, 2021, she did not file a renewed motion. Instead, on April 29, 2021, she submitted a letter to Judge Nathan requesting the court to order the MDC to stop or justify the 15-minute light surveillance that was disrupting her sleep.
DOJ-OGR-00020366.jpg
This legal document details the court's denial of a bail application filed by the defendant, Maxwell, on February 23, 2021. Judge Nathan found Maxwell's arguments about her confinement conditions unpersuasive and reiterated that her detention was necessary due to her being a flight risk, citing her substantial international ties, financial resources, and a "lack of candor regarding her assets" at the time of her arrest. The judge concluded that even a substantial bail package could not reasonably assure Maxwell's future appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00020362.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, is a court filing outlining the allegations against Maxwell. It details her alleged role as a co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997, including identifying, enticing, and grooming victims. The document also references a Superseding Indictment that expanded the charges and the conspiracy timeline to 2004, and notes that Maxwell lied under oath in a civil deposition to conceal her crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00020361.jpg
This document is page 3 of a Government legal filing dated May 27, 2021, opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed attempts for bail. It outlines the procedural history, noting that Judge Nathan previously denied bail twice and that the appellate court affirmed these denials on April 27, 2021. The document states that Maxwell's trial is scheduled to begin on November 29, 2021, and begins a Statement of Facts regarding her indictment.
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