Judge Nathan
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 | Legal filing | At Judge Preska's suggestion, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan seeking modification o... | Court | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell temporary release, finding her to be a flight risk. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Criminal case against Ms. Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial of Maxwell, where Jane testified, defense counsel raised questions to Judge Nathan, and... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Appeal of Judge Nathan's order. | this Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial where testimony was heard from Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A hearing where Judge Nathan examined Juror 50 in detail about his experiences and ability to be ... | The District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial in a detailed written opinion. | The District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Judge Nathan issued an Order prohibiting Maxwell from using certain criminal discovery materials ... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell filed a motion to modify the Protective Order, which was denied by Judge Nathan. | The Court | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | Judge Nathan imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment on Maxwell, plus fi... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A rebuttal argument being made by the prosecution (Ms. Comey) to the jury in a criminal trial. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court order | The district court, via Judge Nathan, denied Ms. Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order. | district court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Post-conviction bail proceedings. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal finding | Judge Nathan finding, three times, that the Government established Maxwell is a risk of flight an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Judicial ruling | Judge Preska declined to stay the unsealing process but stated she would reevaluate if Judge Nath... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal appeal | An appeal by Ms. Maxwell addressing an order by Judge Nathan declining to modify a criminal prote... | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A victim impact statement being delivered to a judge regarding the sentencing of Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Sentencing hearing | A court proceeding for the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell, where her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, presents... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Filing date of the court document (Sentencing submission or transcript). | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Summation being delivered in court by Ms. Menninger | Courtroom (contextual) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing of transcript | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Summation by Ms. Menninger in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Ms. Menninger delivers a summation (closing argument) in a criminal trial. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A summation by Ms. Moe in the trial of Maxwell, arguing for her guilt based on her complicity wit... | Courtroom (implied) | 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.
Denial of request
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
Legal Question
A note asking a question about flights or evidence, described as 'decidedly ambiguous' by the judge.
Denial of Bail
Denial of application (Ex. H)
Justification of procedures
Solicited a response regarding surveillance procedures.
Request for permission to share information
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Denial of Bail Application
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion (Ex. H) denying Maxwell's application for bail.
Victim Impact Statement
Describing the long-lasting effects of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein, specifically the loss of trust in herself.
Follow-up questions
Questions posed to jurors who answered affirmatively to questions 25, 48, or 49.
Denial of Bail Request
Judge Nathan issued a written opinion (Ex. L) denying Maxwell's request for bail.
Jury Selection Questioning
Questioning during jury selection process.
Bail/Detention arguments
Multiple rounds of briefing and lengthy argument regarding Maxwell's bail status.
Nighttime security checks
Complaint that nighttime security checks interfere with ability to prepare for trial; request to modify procedures.
Denial of bail application
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion denying Maxwell's bail application.
Victim Impact Statement
Describing the psychological impact of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appropriateness of an inquiry into Juror 50
Order addressing the appropriateness of an inquiry into Juror 50's conduct and truthfulness.
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