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 |
EFTA00020430.pdf
This document contains an email chain from March 29, 2021, between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Christian Everdell, and the US Attorney's Office (USANYS). The correspondence details technical disputes regarding discovery materials, specifically the defense's inability to provide a hard drive to Maxwell in prison (MDC), issues with unreadable disks, missing email attachments, and discrepancies in metadata for over 110,000 files seized from Jeffrey Epstein's devices. The prosecution explains that some metadata is missing because files were 'carved or deleted' and offers solutions for transferring missing files.
EFTA00020426.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 2021 between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel (Christian Everdell) and the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding discovery disputes. The defense raises seven specific issues, including the inability of Maxwell to view files on prison computers, missing email attachments (over 109,000), metadata discrepancies suggesting files were created/modified after seizure, and gaps in Bates numbering. The prosecution responds by explaining technical limitations with the MDC (prison), asserting that metadata reflects the state of files upon FBI seizure or carving, and clarifying that certain images came from physical CDs seized from Epstein's residences in 2019 rather than electronic extractions.
EFTA00020322.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel, Laura Menninger, and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding the logistics of reviewing physical and electronic evidence. The discussion focuses on arranging a secure location (500 Pearl Street) for Maxwell and her team to review 'highly confidential' materials, including thousands of images seized from Jeffrey Epstein's devices and residences, as well as physical evidence stored in an FBI warehouse. The defense raises concerns about access to laptops, the ability to compare physical and electronic evidence, and the specific handling of sensitive materials.
EFTA00020246.pdf
This document is an internal email chain from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) dated between April 30 and May 3, 2021. The discussion concerns drafting a response to Judge Nathan's order regarding Rule 17 subpoenas related to specific evidence items: 'Diary, boots, photos'. The emails mention reviewing briefs filed by 'BSF/GM' (likely Boies Schiller Flexner and Ghislaine Maxwell) and preparing the response for review by 'the chiefs' before a Tuesday deadline.
EFTA00020243.pdf
An email dated April 30, 2021, from attorney Christian Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP to redacted recipients and copied to members of the defense team (Laura Menninger, Jeff Pagliuca, Bobbi Sternheim) and the US Attorney's Office (USANYS). The email serves to circulate an attached letter regarding 'Hard Drives' that was recently filed on the docket addressed to Judge Nathan.
EFTA00020105.pdf
A formal letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team dated October 11, 2021. The letter discloses that the Government intends to refer to Jeffrey Epstein and two other redacted individuals (one with a former alias) as 'co-conspirators' during the upcoming trial. The document is marked confidential under a protective order.
EFTA00019928.pdf
This document is an email dated December 2, 2020, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York regarding the 'Maxwell' case. The email discusses an attached order from Judge Nathan which requires the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) legal team to file a letter with the court by the following Friday. The sender requests a call to discuss the matter.
EFTA00019424.pdf
This document is an internal email chain among USANYS staff (including Nicholas Biase) from December 2020 discussing the filing of a response to Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail motion. The emails note that Judge Nathan required the response to be filed under seal to allow defense counsel time to object to redactions, explaining why the document was not immediately visible on PACER. The most recent email asks about scheduling updates for the Victim Witness website.
EFTA00019029.pdf
This document contains an email thread from March 22, 2021, between Christian Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP and likely government prosecutors regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The correspondence discusses a 'meet and confer' requirement ordered by Judge Nathan concerning redactions to 'Exhibit 11' and references a sealed document ('Exhibit H') from a civil docket before Judge Preska. The government (implied sender of the top email) asks Everdell if they wish to keep certain quotations redacted given they are sealed in the civil case.
EFTA00018731.pdf
An email exchange dated March 10, 2021, between redacted parties discussing legal strategies for protecting victim identities. One party requests a briefing used in the Epstein/Maxwell case to assist the Justice Department in Canada with a 'publication ban' request for an unspecified extradition case. The responder attaches a document titled 'GM_letter_to_Judge_Nathan_re_victim_names_and_prison_privileges'.
EFTA00018615.pdf
An email chain from October 27, 2020, involving an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) submitting an application for a search warrant to Judge Wang. The correspondence includes a request from the court to flatten PDF attachments and a correction by the AUSA regarding an error where Judge Nathan was named instead of Judge Wang in the initial documents. An agent is noted as being available to swear out the warrant.
EFTA00018571.pdf
An email dated August 11, 2020, discussing legal correspondence regarding 'GM' (Ghislaine Maxwell). The email lists attachments related to defense motions concerning victim identities, prison privileges, and a protective order. The sender notes that Judge Nathan has set a deadline for Thursday and mentions an upcoming team meeting.
EFTA00018263.pdf
This document is an internal email dated October 29, 2020, likely between prosecutors or government officials regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The sender attaches a draft reply to a letter from Maxwell's defense team concerning discovery files from other agencies, along with copies of previous correspondence from October 7th and October 23rd.
EFTA00018219.pdf
This document is an email thread between USANYS staff members dated February 3, 2020, and January 31, 2020. It concerns the logistical pickup of a signed 'Epstein 6(e) Order' from Judge Nathan's chambers following a notification from the Judge's clerk. The emails discuss coordinating a paralegal to retrieve the document.
EFTA00018032.pdf
An email dated August 2, 2021, from an Assistant US Attorney in the Southern District of New York to attorneys with '@epllc.com' email addresses. The email notifies the recipients of a recent order by Judge Nathan regarding Local Criminal Rule 23.1, emphasizing that it applies to attorneys associated with the case, including attorneys for witnesses. The document likely pertains to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial proceedings.
EFTA00018031.pdf
An email dated August 2, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) to attorney Jack Scarola. The email serves to notify Scarola of an order by Judge Nathan regarding Local Criminal Rule 23.1, emphasizing that the rule applies to attorneys associated with a case, including attorneys for witnesses. The document includes a Bates number EFTA00018031.
EFTA00018026.pdf
This document is an email thread from July 30, 2021, relating to the case United States v. Maxwell (20-Cr-330). Attorney David Oscar Markus emailed Judge Nathan's chambers to submit a responsive letter regarding a government filing from June 30, 2021, explaining that he lacked filing privileges in the SDNY. Judge Nathan's chambers replied with an attached order.
EFTA00017842.pdf
This document is an internal email chain from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) dated August 20, 2020. The correspondence concerns a letter regarding Ghislaine Maxwell ('GM') addressed to Judge Nathan about the unsealing of materials. One attorney asks another to 'use this version' of the document attached.
EFTA00017820.pdf
This document is an email dated November 24, 2020, from an Assistant US Attorney in the SDNY to a redacted recipient. The email discusses a legal development where Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel demanded the MDC Warden appear in court regarding confinement conditions, resulting in an order from Judge Nathan for the parties to confer and update the court by December 1. The sender requests a call the following day to discuss the matter before the Thanksgiving holiday.
EFTA00016959.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 20, 2021, among staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The discussion concerns updating the 'Maxwell victim website' (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) with information regarding a court order issued by Judge Nathan for a teleconference on jury selection set for the following day. The email includes the specific text to be posted, including public dial-in numbers for the court proceeding.
EFTA00016768.pdf
This document is an email from attorney Christian Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Nathan, dated December 19, 2020. It serves as a transmittal for filing a Renewed Bail Motion Reply Memorandum and accompanying exhibits under seal in the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell (20 Cr. 330). Other defense counsel, including Bobbi Sternheim, Jeff Pagliuca, and Laura Menninger, are copied on the correspondence.
EFTA00016723.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2021 regarding the case U.S. v. Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim filed a letter with the court, prompting Judge Nathan to order the prosecution (USANYS) to respond by 5 PM the following day. The prosecution notes internally that they have contacted the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to set up a call, likely to gather information needed for their response.
EFTA00016466.pdf
An email thread from November 24, 2021, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and likely defense counsel regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The discussion concerns the admissibility of mental health evidence, specifically referencing 'Sasso' and a motion to preclude 'Hall et al', and includes the exchange of a brief and an opinion by Judge Nathan. The sender notes they have litigated nine experts at that point.
EFTA00015957.pdf
This document is an email chain between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Bureau of Prisons/MDC officials regarding Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after her arrest in July 2020. Key topics include scheduling urgent legal calls for her defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) ahead of deadlines and her arraignment, establishing a standing 10:00 AM call schedule, and confirming her housing conditions (solitary cell and separate exercise) for court filings. BOP officials note that Maxwell was receiving significantly more legal access (2-hour afternoon calls plus morning calls) than typical inmates.
EFTA00015951.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 6-11, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and prison officials (MDC) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after her arrest. The emails coordinate urgent legal calls between Maxwell and her defense counsel (specifically Mr. Everdell) ahead of court deadlines and her arraignment scheduled for July 14, 2020. There is discussion regarding a 'standing legal call' at 10:00 AM and adherence to EDNY/SDNY protocols for scheduling inmate calls.
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