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 |
EFTA00026526.pdf
This document is an email dated July 2, 2020, from an Assistant US Attorney in the SDNY to Judge Nathan regarding the case 'United States v. Maxwell'. The email submits a memorandum in support of detention for Ghislaine Maxwell and notes that a copy is being provided to the Magistrate Judge in New Hampshire for proceedings occurring that afternoon. Defense counsel Jeff Pagliuca is copied on the correspondence.
EFTA00026478.pdf
An email from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) regarding a telephone conference for the Maxwell case presided over by Judge Nathan. The email follows up on previous communication from Bobbi Sternheim and provides dial-in information for the defendant, referencing an attached court order.
EFTA00026433.pdf
This document is an email header dated July 10, 2020, with the subject 'letter template'. The sender and recipient are redacted. It includes an attachment titled '2020-07-10,_GM_letter_to_Judge_Nathan_re_arraignment_overflow.docx', which relates to legal correspondence concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's arraignment before Judge Nathan.
EFTA00025282.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2021 detailing complaints by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, regarding conditions at the MDC. Sternheim alleges 'foul play' or a 'cover-up' regarding legal mail that went missing and reappeared with USPS markings despite being placed in an internal mailbox. Additional complaints include inadequate space and COVID safety during legal visits, denial of requests to see the Warden, and issues with food (receiving meat while on a vegetarian diet) and electricity.
EFTA00025278.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2021 between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, and Bureau of Prisons officials. Sternheim alleges 'foul play' regarding legal mail that went missing and reappeared with a USPS barcode despite never being mailed externally. She also complains about poor conditions at the MDC, including cramped meeting rooms violating COVID protocols, electricity/water issues, and the prison serving Maxwell a bologna sandwich despite her vegetarian diet.
EFTA00025147.pdf
This document is an email dated October 28, 2021, from Nicole Simmons of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. to Judge Nathan's chambers in the Southern District of New York. It serves as a transmittal for the filing of 'Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support of Her Motions in Limine' in the case U.S. v. Maxwell (Case No. 20 Cr. 330). The email was sent at the request of attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca.
EFTA00025146.pdf
An email chain from October 2021 involving an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The correspondence discusses a tight 48-hour deadline set by Judge Nathan to file a reply brief in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The email specifically mentions addressing arguments regarding 'MV-4' (Minor Victim 4) and includes attachments related to motions in limine.
EFTA00025037.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2021 between the defense team for Ghislaine Maxwell (Christian Everdell, Bobbi Sternheim, etc.) and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY). The correspondence concerns the scheduling and procedure for filing a 'request to charge' (jury instructions) with Judge Nathan. The parties discuss extensions, the possibility of filing separate requests rather than a joint one, and agree to a schedule where the Government files first, followed by the Defense's redline or separate filing in early November.
EFTA00024952.pdf
This document is an email chain dated November 22, 2021, between personnel at the Southern District of New York (SDNY) regarding the preparation of a binder for legal proceedings. The emails discuss attaching various legal documents related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (case 20cr330), including responses to motions, limiting instructions from Judge Nathan, and Government Exhibit 52 (GX-52).
EFTA00024931.pdf
An email dated May 5, 2021, from Assistant US Attorney Lara [Redacted] to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Everdell, Cohen, Sternheim, Menninger, Pagliuca). The prosecutor is sharing a draft letter regarding 'flashlight checks' (as indicated by the attachment filename) pursuant to Judge Nathan's April 29 order, asking the defense to identify any necessary redactions of private medical information before the letter is publicly filed.
EFTA00024921.pdf
An email chain from November 17-18, 2021, involving U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) staff and contractors discussing the logistics of obtaining 'courtroom connect' (internet access) for legal proceedings presided over by Judge Nathan (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The correspondence details the necessity of obtaining a signed order from the judge to proceed with technical installation before Thanksgiving, referencing a similar previous application made to Judge Kaplan.
EFTA00024905.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 20, 2021, concerning legal instructions for Judge Nathan. An Assistant United States Attorney from the Southern District of New York discusses providing views on proposed limiting instructions and mentions preparing two responsive letters following an order on MV-3. The chain also includes a draft response to be used as a starting point.
EFTA00024904.pdf
An email dated November 20, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York to their team. The email concerns a response due to Judge Nathan regarding limiting instructions related to an order on 'MV-3' (likely referencing a minor victim in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, case 20cr330). The sender has drafted two potential responses and requests a call to discuss.
EFTA00024788.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 6-10, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and MDC staff regarding the scheduling of legal calls for Ghislaine Maxwell immediately following her arrest. The correspondence highlights urgent requests for access due to court deadlines set by Judge Nathan, the establishment of a standing 10 AM daily call schedule leading up to her arraignment on July 14, and some friction regarding whether defense counsel was following proper protocols for requesting calls.
EFTA00024437.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and prison officials (MDC) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell immediately following her arrest on July 6, 2020. The correspondence coordinates urgent legal calls for Maxwell to meet a court deadline set by Judge Nathan and establishes a schedule for daily standing calls with her defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, leading up to her arraignment on July 14, 2020. There is some friction regarding whether defense counsel followed proper protocols for requesting calls, with prison officials defending their responsiveness.
EFTA00024232.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2021 regarding the legal case U.S. v. Maxwell. The initial email is from defense attorney Nicole Simmons to Judge Nathan's chambers, submitting Ghislaine Maxwell's reply in support of motions in limine. This email was subsequently forwarded internally within the US Attorney's Office (USANYS) with a note attaching both the defense reply and the government's final brief.
EFTA00024021.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 2021 related to the U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell case. Christian Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP submits reply memoranda and exhibits for pretrial motions to Judge Nathan's chambers and government prosecutors (USANYS), noting that documents are being filed under seal with redacted versions for the public docket.
EFTA00023894.pdf
This document is an email dated August 17, 2021, from Assistant US Attorney Andrew (likely Andrew Rohrbach) to redacted colleagues. It discusses a recent ruling by Judge Nathan denying Ghislaine Maxwell's supplemental motions. The email focuses on correcting the Judge's presumption that the prosecution intended to provide the defense with the identities of uncharged co-conspirators, stating clearly that they 'do not, in fact, intend to do so' and have drafted a letter to that effect.
EFTA00023692.pdf
This document is an email metadata printout dated September 28, 2020, originating from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The subject concerns a draft letter to Judge Nathan regarding discovery in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The document contains technical email headers, including a Message-ID and an embedded message reference, with most participant identities redacted.
EFTA00023365.pdf
An email from the Southern District of New York (Government) to Judge Nathan's chambers regarding the case US v. Maxwell. The email submits proposed redactions related to 'Witness-3' (also referred to as Accuser-3 in attachments) pursuant to previous court orders and motions.
EFTA00023362.pdf
This document is an email dated November 21, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) to defense attorneys Laura Menninger and Jeff Pagliuca. The email transmits attachments containing proposed redactions regarding 'Witness-3' (also referred to as Accuser-3 and MV-3 in filenames) related to case filings (Case 20cr330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
EFTA00022177.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 7, 2021, discussing legal strategy related to a 'Decision on motion to strike' in an Epstein-related case. The emails focus on the legal interpretation of conspiracy and the transportation of Minor Victim-3, asserting that a conspiracy does not require the completion of a substantive crime. It also references Judge Nathan's decision denying pretrial motions and mentions the involvement of an Assistant United States Attorney from the Southern District of New York.
EFTA00021941.pdf
This document is a formal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (SDNY) to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, dated October 11, 2021. It serves to notify the defense that the Government intends to refer to Jeffrey Epstein and other redacted individuals as co-conspirators during the trial, pursuant to a court order. The letter is marked as Exhibit 1 and designated as confidential under a protective order.
EFTA00021917.pdf
This document is an email thread from July 22, 2020, among a legal team discussing the urgent filing of a letter to Judge Netburn (and potentially Judge Nathan) regarding an order on unsealing and Local Rule 23.1. The team is experiencing technical difficulties, including VPN issues and Westlaw being down. Two attachments are referenced: one addressed to Judge Nathan regarding Rule 23.1 and another to Netburn regarding an unsealing order.
EFTA00021898.pdf
This document is an email chain from August 9-12, 2020, between defense attorneys (Jeff Pagliuca, Nicole Simmons, Christian Everdell, Mark Cohen) and the US Attorney's Office for the SDNY regarding a discovery dispute. The defense is pressing for a quick response to an August 9th letter, citing a tight schedule with the Circuit and threatening to advise Judge Nathan if they do not receive a response sooner than the Government's proposed date of August 13th. The correspondence also notes technical email issues at the defense firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman.
Victim Impact Statement
Describing the long-lasting effects of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein, specifically the loss of trust in herself.
Denial of Bail Request
Judge Nathan issued a written opinion (Ex. L) denying Maxwell's request for bail.
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.
Legal Question
A note asking a question about flights or evidence, described as 'decidedly ambiguous' by the judge.
Denial of Bail Application
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion (Ex. H) denying Maxwell's application for bail.
Jury Selection Questioning
Questioning during jury selection process.
Follow-up questions
Questions posed to jurors who answered affirmatively to questions 25, 48, or 49.
Nighttime security checks
Complaint that nighttime security checks interfere with ability to prepare for trial; request to modify procedures.
Justification of procedures
Solicited a response regarding surveillance procedures.
Denial of Bail
Denial of application (Ex. H)
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.
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.
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.
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