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 |
EFTA00030386.pdf
This document is an email chain between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Bureau of Prisons/MDC officials regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's initial custody conditions from July 6 to July 13, 2020. The correspondence coordinates urgent legal calls for Maxwell ahead of deadlines set by Judge Nathan and her arraignment, with BOP officials noting she is receiving more access than typical inmates. The chain concludes with the prosecution seeking confirmation that Maxwell is housed in a single cell separated from other inmates for security reasons to include in a public filing.
EFTA00030069.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 9, 2021, regarding the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Laura Menninger submits a letter to Judge Nathan detailing objections to the government's proposed redactions in an Omnibus Response. Subsequent emails in the chain involve coordination between the defense and the US Attorney's Office (USANYS) regarding the exchange of proposed redactions.
EFTA00030021.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (led by Laura Menninger) and the US Attorney's Office regarding the logistics of reviewing evidence for the case *US v. Maxwell*. The discussion focuses on the protocols for reviewing 'Highly Confidential' materials (specifically nude images and videos seized from Jeffrey Epstein's devices), the transport of physical evidence (including massage tables, plaster busts, and a stuffed dog) from the FBI Bronx warehouse to the courthouse, and the scheduling of Maxwell's transport by Marshals to 500 Pearl Street. The prosecution refuses to transport bulky items or obscene digital material freely, requiring the defense to view some items at the warehouse or on specific laptops under supervision.
EFTA00030000.pdf
This document is an internal email chain between Assistant United States Attorneys in the Southern District of New York dated January 28, 2021. The correspondence concerns a deadline to submit a letter to Judge Nathan regarding 'GM's' (Ghislaine Maxwell) proposed redactions to pre-trial motions. The email includes an attachment of the draft letter for review.
EFTA00029843.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 9, 2021, regarding the legal case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell (20 Cr. 330). Laura Menninger of Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. writes to Judge Nathan to submit a letter detailing Ms. Maxwell's objections to redactions proposed by the government in their Omnibus Response. The email includes several attachments related to these redactions and exhibits.
EFTA00029695.pdf
An email thread from May 2021 regarding the legal proceedings of Ghislaine Maxwell. Her attorney, David Oscar Markus, notifies prosecutors of his intent to file a renewed bond motion in the Second Circuit following a ruling on conditions of confinement. The prosecutors (internal email) discuss confusion over this strategy, noting the previous ruling was about sleeping conditions, not bail.
EFTA00029487.pdf
This document is an internal US Attorney's Office (SDNY) email chain dated October 30, 2020, discussing a critical delay in discovery production for the 'US v. Epstein' case. Nicholas Koontz, a lead analyst at contractor PAE, informs the team that 1.2 million records are still being imaged and won't be available until November 2. USANYS staff express frustration that requests made in September are only just arriving, concluding they will likely miss a November 9 deadline set by Judge Nathan.
EFTA00029423.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 2021 between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and defense attorneys (Christian Everdell, Laura Menninger, Jeff Pagliuca), likely regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The correspondence concerns proposed redactions for filings related to 'Witness-3' and includes an attachment referencing a letter to Judge Nathan. Christian Everdell requests a quick phone call with the prosecutor during the exchange.
EFTA00029199.pdf
This document is an email header dated October 4, 2021, transmitting a PDF attachment. The attachment is titled as a letter from 'GM' (likely Ghislaine Maxwell) to Judge Nathan dated October 7, 2020, regarding discovery from other agencies. The email is directed to the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS).
EFTA00028771.pdf
This document is an email from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York to Judge Nathan's chambers, dated July 2, 2020. It informs the court that Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested that morning in New Hampshire and that the government intends to seek her detention. The email also requests the setting of an initial conference date.
EFTA00028688.pdf
An email chain from October 30, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and PAE (an e-discovery contractor). The correspondence concerns the shipment of hard drives containing productions SDNYPROD008 through SDNYPROD014 for the 'US v. Epstein' workspace. The USANYS staff expresses serious concern regarding processing delays (taking 1-2 months), the volume of data (1.2 million records), and the high likelihood of missing a November 9 deadline set by Judge Nathan.
EFTA00028646.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Cohen & Gresser; Haddon, Morgan & Foreman) and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding discovery production disputes in Spring 2021. Key issues include technical difficulties Maxwell faced in reviewing digital evidence at the MDC prison (specifically reading disks vs. hard drives), missing attachments for over 109,000 emails, and metadata discrepancies for 'carved' or deleted files recovered from Jeffrey Epstein's devices. The correspondence details the logistical back-and-forth regarding file formats, USAfx transfers, and the potential need for judicial intervention (Judge Nathan) to force the MDC to accept specific hard drives.
EFTA00028585.pdf
This document is an email chain between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Cohen & Gresser; Haddon, Morgan & Foreman) and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding discovery disputes. The defense raises seven key issues, including over 109,000 emails missing attachments, metadata discrepancies on files extracted from Epstein's devices, and difficulties providing discovery materials to Maxwell at the MDC due to technical and bureaucratic limitations. The prosecution responds with technical explanations regarding FBI CART processes, 'carved' or deleted files lacking metadata, and the conversion of VHS/cassette tapes.
EFTA00028571.pdf
This document is a chain of email correspondence between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Everdell, Menninger) and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding discovery disputes in Spring 2021. Key issues include the defense's inability to view certain files on prison computers, missing email attachments (over 109,000), and technical disputes over metadata for 'carved' or deleted files recovered from Jeffrey Epstein's electronic devices. The prosecution explains that metadata for deleted files was not recovered and that certain images (nude and non-nude) were seized from CDs in Epstein's residences rather than extracted by CART from devices.
EFTA00028552.pdf
This document is an email dated August 20, 2020, with redacted sender and recipient fields. The subject is 'draft', and it includes an attachment titled '2020-08-19,_GM,_letter_to_Judge_Nathan_re_unsealing_materials_1.docx'. This indicates legal correspondence concerning Ghislaine Maxwell (GM) and Judge Nathan regarding the unsealing of case materials.
EFTA00028278.pdf
This document is an email dated November 12, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York to a colleague. The sender requests the preparation of a binder for an upcoming court appearance on the following Monday, attaching various legal documents related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, including motions regarding 'MV-3' (Minor Victim 3), expert witnesses Dietz and Loftus, and responses to the defense.
EFTA00028035.pdf
An email from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) dated October 27, 2021, discussing an urgent deadline set by Judge Nathan to file a reply brief in the Maxwell case. The email references attachments related to 'Maxwell's Response to Govs Omnibus Motns in Limine' and specifically asks a colleague to verify the accuracy of the government's response regarding 'MV-4' (Minor Victim 4).
EFTA00027701.pdf
This document is an internal email thread among Assistant United States Attorneys for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) dated October 18, 2021, regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The prosecutors discuss revisions to Motions in Limine (MILs) and letters to Judge Nathan, specifically strategizing on how to address a witness's prior limited media comments about Epstein versus their expected court testimony, and the need to seal claims of 'Maxwell abuse' to prevent tainting the jury pool.
EFTA00027663.pdf
This document contains an email chain from November 2021 regarding the criminal case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Christian Everdell submits a response to the government's letters concerning 'Accuser-3's evidence' to Judge Nathan's chambers, filing the document under temporary seal to allow for potential redactions. The correspondence also lists other defense team members including Jeff Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, and Bobbi Sternheim.
EFTA00027394.pdf
An email dated August 2, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) to attorneys Sigrid McCawley and 'David'. The email serves to notify them of an order by Judge Nathan regarding Local Criminal Rule 23.1, emphasizing that it applies to attorneys associated with cases, including those representing witnesses.
EFTA00027167.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 22, 2021, involving the defense team for Ghislaine Maxwell and the US Attorney's Office (USANYS). Laura Menninger, representing Maxwell, emailed Judge Nathan attaching a Letter Motion for an adjournment of the trial (120 or 180 days) and requesting permission to redact names of other clients based on professional conduct rules. Subsequent emails between government attorneys discuss a draft response due by 5 PM that same day.
EFTA00027165.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 22, 2021, concerning the case US v. Maxwell. The initial email features Laura Menninger, defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, submitting a Letter Motion for an adjournment of the trial to Judge Nathan and requesting redactions to protect client confidentiality under Rule 1.6. Subsequent emails show internal coordination among USANYS prosecutors drafting a response to this motion, which was due by 5 PM that day.
EFTA00027162.pdf
An email chain from April 21, 2021, between attorneys Sigrid McCawley (Boies Schiller Flexner), Jeff Pagliuca, and Laura Menninger regarding compliance with an order from Judge Nathan. McCawley requests confirmation to send specific documents and redactions related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case to the Government. Pagliuca forwards the relevant PDF attachments, noting they were missing from a previous email.
EFTA00026837.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 2021 between attorneys at the Southern District of New York (USANYS) discussing a recent opinion by Judge Nathan in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The team arranges a weekend conference call to discuss the Judge's order requiring the government to confirm its position on evidence supporting Maxwell's interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). One email also references a previous letter regarding discovery materials obtained from the Southern District of Florida (SDFL).
EFTA00026527.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 2, 2020, between the Chief of the Criminal Division at the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and a recipient named 'Ed'. The correspondence confirms the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell in New Hampshire on charges of facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors. It discusses procedural details, including that her presentment will not be in SDNY that day and that any appeal on the bail argument would go to Judge Nathan.
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.
Denial of Bail Request
Judge Nathan issued a written opinion (Ex. L) denying Maxwell's request for bail.
Nighttime security checks
Complaint that nighttime security checks interfere with ability to prepare for trial; request to modify procedures.
Jury Selection Questioning
Questioning during jury selection process.
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 application
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion denying Maxwell's bail application.
Bail/Detention arguments
Multiple rounds of briefing and lengthy argument regarding Maxwell's bail status.
Request for permission to share information
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Denial of request
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information 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 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.
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.
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.
Court Order
Order directing an inquiry into Juror 50.
Appropriateness of an inquiry
Invited Juror 50 to address the inquiry into his conduct and the effect of his personal history on deliberations.
Appropriateness of an inquiry into Juror 50
Order addressing the appropriateness of an inquiry into Juror 50's conduct and truthfulness.
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