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-00019617.jpg
This legal document, dated October 2, 2020, details a dispute in a criminal case concerning a Protective Order. The defendant, Maxwell, sought to modify the order on August 17, 2020, to use discovery materials from her criminal case in separate civil proceedings, despite having previously agreed not to. The Government filed an opposition to this motion on August 21, 2020, citing the original terms of the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00019615.jpg
This legal document, dated October 2, 2020, outlines a series of events in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell. It details that on July 30, 2020, Judge Nathan issued a protective order preventing criminal discovery materials from being used in civil litigation, and on September 2, 2020, denied Maxwell's motion to modify this order. Consequently, Maxwell filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019609.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020 (Document 82 in Case 20-3061). It outlines arguments asserting that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. The document references Judge Nathan and details the structure of the argument spanning 30 pages.
DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. It outlines the three legal conditions required for such a writ, citing precedents like 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.'. The document asserts that all three conditions are met, specifically claiming that Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and that the petitioner, Ms. Maxwell, has no other legal recourse, referencing her request to Judge Preska.
DOJ-OGR-00019603.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing for the ability to share sealed information with Judge Preska to litigate the "Martindell issue," which she claims the government improperly handled. As an alternative, the filing requests that the appellate court exercise mandamus jurisdiction to compel the district court to modify a protective order, citing legal precedent to support both arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00019602.jpg
This legal document is a filing in Ms. Maxwell's civil appeal, arguing against an order by Judge Preska to unseal her deposition. The core argument is that unsealing the deposition would prejudice her ability to properly litigate the government's conduct (the 'Martindell' issue) before Judge Nathan in her separate criminal case. The document refutes the government's characterization of her argument, stating she is not asking the appeals court to rule on the merits of the criminal case issue, but rather to preserve the status quo to protect her Fifth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00019597.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, concerning Case 20-3061. It presents a legal argument distinguishing the current appeal from *Flanagan v. United States*, asserting that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding Judge Nathan's order is comparable to a bail reduction motion because the harm (unsealing deposition materials) would be irreversible ("the cat is irretrievably out of the bag") if not addressed immediately. The text argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share information from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska to prevent the unsealing order from going into effect without reconsideration.
DOJ-OGR-00019596.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061, dated Sept 28, 2020) outlines a dispute over appellate jurisdiction. Ms. Maxwell is requesting permission to share facts with another judge under seal. The document argues against the government's position that the court lacks jurisdiction, asserting that Judge Nathan's previous order meets the requirements of the 'collateral order doctrine' despite the government's strict interpretation.
DOJ-OGR-00019593.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically an appeal, related to Case 20-3061. The appellant, Ms. Maxwell, challenges a district court order by Judge Nathan that denied her request to share information with another judge. The filing argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review this order under the collateral order doctrine, countering the government's contention that the order is unreviewable.
DOJ-OGR-00019587.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in which Ms. Maxwell requests permission from the court to be excused from publicly filing a redacted version of 'Appendix Volume 2'. The justification is that the appendix and related briefs contain confidential information shielded by a criminal protective order. The filing connects this request to two ongoing appeals she has filed: one against an order by Judge Nathan and another against an order by Judge Preska in the related case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, with a consolidated oral argument scheduled for October 13.
DOJ-OGR-00019585.jpg
This is a Motion Information Statement filed on September 24, 2020, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case of United States v. Maxwell (Docket No. 20-3061). Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Adam Mueller, is requesting permission to file several documents under seal, including an unredacted brief and Appendix Volume 2, arguing they contain confidential material. The motion states that the opposing counsel for the United States, Maurene Comey, does not oppose this request.
DOJ-OGR-00019584.jpg
This document is a table of contents for a legal filing in Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020. It lists various documents filed in August 2020, including letters, an affidavit, and exhibits related to modifying a protective order and submitting proposed redactions under seal, involving parties identified as 'JSP' and 'Judge Nathan'.
DOJ-OGR-00019437.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The author argues that the Court should overturn a district court's decision, which would allow Ms. Maxwell to share information from her criminal case (under Judge Nathan) with Judge Preska in her civil case. The filing contends that the government's argument to prevent this sharing lacks a principled justification.
DOJ-OGR-00019434.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, argues that the government strategically chose not to intervene to prevent the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's depositions. The filing suggests this inaction allows the government to later claim any violation of a prior ruling was harmless. It supports its argument by citing legal precedents, such as 'Louis Vuitton' and 'SEC v. Boock', which warn of the dangers for defendants who waive their Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00019433.jpg
This document is page 29 (labeled Page 34 of 58 in the header) of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the government is acting inconsistently by intervening to stay proceedings in the civil case 'Doe v. Indyke' to protect the criminal prosecution's integrity, while failing to do the same in 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' regarding unsealing deposition materials. The text highlights that Jane Doe alleges abuse by both Epstein and Maxwell when she was a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00019431.jpg
This document is page 32 of a legal filing (dated Sept 24, 2020) arguing against the unsealing of deposition material. The text contends that unsealing the material would prevent Judge Preska from reconsidering her decision based on new information about how the government obtained the material, and would prejudice Ms. Maxwell's ability to argue before Judge Nathan that perjury counts should be dismissed due to the government's circumvention of the 'Martindell' precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00019429.jpg
This legal document describes the predicament of Ms. Maxwell, who is involved in both a civil and a criminal case presided over by two different judges, Judge Preska and Judge Nathan. A protective order in the criminal case, issued by Judge Nathan, prevents her from sharing relevant information with Judge Preska in the civil case. Her requests to both judges to resolve this issue have been denied, placing her in what the document calls a 'Catch-22 situation'.
DOJ-OGR-00019427.jpg
This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. It argues that Judge Nathan erred by not modifying a protective order, preventing Ghislaine Maxwell from sharing sealed material with Judge Preska, which the defense claims is necessary to protect Maxwell's rights under the *Martindell* precedent. The document highlights the complexity of the litigation, noting that six sets of judicial officers are handling interrelated questions regarding Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019426.jpg
This document is a legal filing, likely part of an appeal brief, dated September 24, 2020. The filing argues that the appellate court should overturn Judge Nathan's decision and modify a criminal protective order. The purpose of the modification is to allow Ms. Maxwell to share sealed information with Judge Preska regarding how the government obtained her deposition transcripts, which Judge Preska is considering unsealing.
DOJ-OGR-00019425.jpg
This document is page 21 (filed as page 26) of a legal brief in Case 20-3061, filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that a writ of mandamus is appropriate because Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and Judge Preska's unsealing order relies on inconsistent decisions within the Southern District of New York. The text discusses the unsealing of deposition materials and claims prejudice against Ms. Maxwell, though specific details are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019424.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 60) filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that if Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan's order via the 'collateral order doctrine,' the appellate court should instead issue a 'writ of mandamus' to modify the protective order. The document outlines legal precedents and the three specific conditions required to issue such a writ.
DOJ-OGR-00019422.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (likely the Second Circuit appeal regarding Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines Maxwell's argument that the civil appeal court should reverse Judge Preska's order to unseal her depositions. She argues that unsealing the documents now would prejudice her ability to challenge the government's conduct (specifically an alleged violation of 'Martindell' by obtaining civil depositions for criminal use) before Judge Nathan in her pending criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019418.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that an appeal concerning Judge Nathan's order should proceed. The author contends that the appeal is separate from an ongoing criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, will not cause delays, and that waiting for the criminal trial to conclude would render the issue moot. The document references a stay on Judge Preska's order to unseal deposition material as a reason for the current proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019413.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing from September 24, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's appeals. It outlines the procedural posture of two related appeals: one regarding Judge Preska's order unsealing deposition materials in the civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell), and the current appeal regarding Judge Nathan's denial of a motion to modify a criminal protective order. Maxwell has moved to consolidate these two appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00019412.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, describes a procedural issue in a case involving Ms. Maxwell. A criminal protective order issued by Judge Nathan prevented Ms. Maxwell from sharing critical information with Judge Preska regarding an unsealing process. Following Judge Preska's suggestion, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan to modify the order, seeking permission to share what she had learned under seal.
Security Protocols
Instruction to ensure Maxwell is subjected only to necessary security protocols based on neutral factors.
Denial of request to modify nighttime monitoring
Denied request to modify schedule; noted claims were unsupported by affidavit.
Written Decision
Denying Maxwell's request to modify nighttime monitoring schedule.
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 (docketed)
A docketed letter sent to Judge Nathan regarding proposed redactions and sealing.
Proposed redactions and sealing
A sealed 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