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 | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan found three times that the Government established Maxwell is a risk of flight and th... | district court | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Judge Nathan refused to modify a criminal protective order. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The document discusses preserving Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate an issue concerning the governm... | Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | The underlying legal trial where Juror 50 served. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | Jury selection process where Judge Nathan asked follow-up questions regarding jurors' personal ex... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A hearing where Juror 50's credibility was assessed, from which statements are being drawn for th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberations | The jury was deliberating on the charges against Maxwell, during which they sent a note to the ju... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Judge Nathan declined to modify a protective order, which is described as a clear abuse of her di... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | An opening statement is being given in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's application for bail. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan concluded that Maxwell presented a risk of flight and that her proposed bail package... | Court | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | Maxwell was given a 240-month sentence. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal case against Ms. Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial of Maxwell, during which the Government made its summation and Judge Nathan gave jury i... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial where evidence was presented and testimony was given regarding the roles of Maxwell and K... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal argument | Maxwell argues that Judge Nathan should have implied bias in Juror 50 due to similarities between... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A court order was issued by Judge Nathan on January 5th. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A discussion during a trial regarding a request by the defendant, Maxwell, for a specific jury in... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Judicial finding | Judge Nathan determined that the government's evidence against Ms. Maxwell appears strong and tha... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell appealed Judge Nathan's latter two bail decisions and moved for pretrial release pending ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan's finding that Maxwell is a substantial flight risk and that no bail conditions woul... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | Judge Nathan granted the Government's motion to dismiss the perjury counts. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's appeal regarding the unsealing of discovery materials from a criminal case for use in c... | Second Circuit | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An appeal of Judge Nathan's order which refused to modify a protective order. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan issued an Order declining to modify the Protective Order | District Court | View |
EFTA00015804.pdf
This document is an email chain between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding the logistics of reviewing discovery evidence in March and April 2021. The discussions concern protocols for viewing 'highly confidential' materials, including nude images and physical evidence (such as massage tables and plaster busts) seized from Jeffrey Epstein's properties. The parties negotiate the location of the review (FBI Bronx warehouse vs. 500 Pearl Street courthouse), the presence of the defendant, and the use of electronic devices by defense counsel during the review.
EFTA00015770.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (led by Laura Menninger) and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding the logistics of reviewing evidence for the case *US v. Maxwell*. The correspondence details negotiations over the location of the review (500 Pearl St vs. FBI Bronx Warehouse), the transportation of specific physical evidence (including excluding 'bulky' massage tables and cash), and protocols for viewing 'highly confidential' and 'obscene' electronic images seized from Jeffrey Epstein's properties. The defense expresses concerns about missing items, the format of electronic surveillance, and the need for their client to meaningfully participate in the review.
EFTA00015753.pdf
This document contains a chain of email correspondence between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Menninger, Everdell) and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding the logistics of reviewing evidence for case 20 Cr. 330. The discussions focus on scheduling physical evidence reviews at an FBI warehouse in the Bronx and electronic evidence reviews at the 500 Pearl Street courthouse. Key evidence items discussed include massage tables, plaster busts, cash, shredded paper, and thousands of 'highly confidential' nude or partially nude images seized from Jeffrey Epstein's devices and residences.
EFTA00015738.pdf
This document is a chain of email correspondence between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (led by Laura Menninger) and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding the logistics of reviewing evidence for the case US v. Maxwell. The emails discuss the scheduling of Maxwell's transport by Marshals to 500 Pearl Street to review 'Highly Confidential' materials, including 2,100 nude/partially nude images seized from Jeffrey Epstein's electronic devices. The correspondence also details disputes over the transport of physical evidence from an FBI warehouse in the Bronx, specifically mentioning 'bulky' items like massage tables, plaster busts of female torsos, and a stuffed dog, which the government argued were difficult to transport.
EFTA00015636.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Cohen & Gresser) and the US Attorney's Office regarding discovery disputes. Key issues include the logistics of providing electronic discovery to Maxwell in prison (MDC) because she cannot use disks, missing email attachments, and metadata discrepancies for thousands of files and photos recovered from Epstein's devices and residences. The prosecution explains that 'carved' or deleted files lack original metadata and that certain photos came from seized CDs rather than devices processed by the FBI's CART unit.
EFTA00015345.pdf
This document is an email from attorney Robert Y. Lewis of The Marsh Law Firm to prosecutors (including a Mr. Pecorino) regarding the upcoming trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (USA v. Maxwell). Lewis requests information on admission protocols for his client, a redacted victim of Epstein and Maxwell who previously gave a victim impact statement in 2019, to attend the trial scheduled for November 29, 2021.
EFTA00015277.pdf
This document is an email chain from June 2021 between US Attorneys in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. They discuss preparation for a suppression hearing, exchange legal documents including transcripts from Judge Sweet and Magistrate Judge Netburn, and identify Stan Pottinger as a lawyer from Boies Schiller who represented a civil plaintiff. The prosecutors also express frustration with the defense filing 12 separate memos of law (MOLs) to evade page limits.
EFTA00015023.pdf
This document is an internal email dated January 31, 2020, between staff at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The sender informs colleagues that they received a call from Judge Nathan's clerk confirming that an 'Epstein 6(e) Order' has been signed and is ready for pickup from chambers. Rule 6(e) typically pertains to the secrecy of Grand Jury proceedings.
EFTA00014695.pdf
An email dated November 22, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York to defense attorneys Christian Everdell, Jeff Pagliuca, and Laura Menninger. The email discusses the procedure for filing redacted versions of legal documents related to birth certificates, exhibit GX-52, and a motion to quash, referencing Docket Numbers 473, 474, and 476. The sender proposes a sequence for filing cover letters and redacted motions to the Court.
EFTA00014669.pdf
This document is an email thread from May 2021 regarding the case US v. Maxwell. An Assistant United States Attorney contacts Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Laura Menninger, et al.) to dispute a claim made in a recent filing that the defense had made multiple unanswered attempts to confer with the government regarding specific photographs. The AUSA requests the defense either identify these communications or correct the representation to the Court. The thread includes the underlying email from Laura Menninger to Judge Nathan's chambers submitting the filing in question.
EFTA00014661.pdf
This document contains an email exchange between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Laura Menninger, and US Prosecutors regarding Local Criminal Rule 23.1, which limits press statements. Menninger initially flags comments made by attorney Spencer Kuvin in 'The Sun' as a potential violation. The prosecution responds that Kuvin does not represent any trial witnesses, but counters that Maxwell's own appellate attorney, David Markus, may have violated the rule via statements to the 'NY Post'.
EFTA00014380.pdf
An email chain from November 2020 between USANYS staff and contractors regarding the technical processing of the 'US v. Epstein (SW database)'. The correspondence details the receipt of hard drives from vendor PAE containing productions 15 & 16, the stamping and exporting of data parts 1-7 via Relativity, and the integration of USAO-SDFL files. There is a mention of a potential extension request to Judge Nathan regarding a November 19th deadline.
EFTA00013302.pdf
This document is an email chain dated December 30, 2020, between Assistant US Attorney Maurene (Comey) and defense attorney Christian Everdell, with other legal team members CC'd. The correspondence concerns a recent order by Judge Nathan denying bail; the defense states they believe no redactions are necessary for the opinion, and the prosecution agrees, attaching a draft joint letter to the Court to convey this position. The document is marked with Bates stamp EFTA00013302.
EFTA00013300.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 29, 2021, involving the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It discusses an order issued by Judge Nathan directing the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) to take specific actions by April 30, 2021. The emails coordinate the filing and transmission of this order to the Judge's chambers.
EFTA00013172.pdf
An email dated September 14, 2021, with redacted sender and recipient, discussing a protective order. The email attaches a sealed opinion order from case 20cr330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) authored by Judge Nathan and references legal precedents 'Martindell' and 'Chemical Bank'.
EFTA00011498.pdf
An internal email dated September 30, 2020, between staff at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The email circulates a draft letter ('GM letter') addressed to Judge Nathan regarding discovery from other agencies, likely concerning the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
EFTA00011444.pdf
This document is an email sent on January 28, 2021, by an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. The email, with the subject 'Maxwell motions 1 of 3', transmits attachments related to pretrial motions, including a cover letter addressed to Judge Nathan dated January 25, 2021. The sender and recipient identities are redacted.
EFTA00011167.pdf
This document is an email from attorney Christian Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Nathan, dated December 8, 2020. It serves as a transmittal for filing a Renewed Bail Motion and several redacted exhibits (O-P, S, W-X) under seal in the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The email copies other members of the defense team including Mark Cohen, Bobbi Sternheim, Jeff Pagliuca, and Laura Menninger, as well as representatives from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USANYS).
EFTA00011164.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2021 regarding the filing of 13 motions in limine by the defense in the case U.S. v. Maxwell (Case No. 20 Cr. 330). Nicole Simmons of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. submitted the motions to Judge Nathan's chambers on behalf of Jeffrey Pagliuca. Subsequent internal emails among USANYS staff discuss accessing these files via a shared DOJ drive path (referencing 'StAndrews' and 'USvEpstein') or via email attachment.
EFTA00010965.pdf
An email thread from July 2020 between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and unknown recipients regarding the case US v. Maxwell. An Assistant US Attorney provides the grand jury return for a superseding indictment, noting it is unsealed and was presented to Judge Nathan. A subsequent email requests the immediate docketing of the indictment on ECF to ensure notice is given before the defendant's upcoming arraignment.
EFTA00010189.pdf
An internal government email dated December 2, 2020, addressed to 'Chiefs' submitting a draft legal letter for review. The draft responds to Ghislaine Maxwell's requests for redactions and an 'in camera' proceeding, following an order from Judge Nathan. The email includes several attachments relating to sealing motions and bail motions.
EFTA00009920.pdf
This document is an email chain between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in November 2020. Sternheim requests Maxwell be moved to an interior cell due to reports that the NYC Dept. of Design & Construction would be shutting off heat and water overnight for repairs. The Assistant US Attorney denies the request, stating that temperatures are being monitored and remain within BOP policy limits, and asserting that Maxwell's current placement is appropriate for safety and security.
EFTA00009890.pdf
This document is an email thread between defense and government counsel in the US v Maxwell case, dated April 19-20, 2021. The correspondence concerns scheduling a conferral call and negotiating specific redactions for several 'Reply Briefs' and exhibits to be filed on the public docket. Key issues include protecting the identities of accusers, third parties, and AUSAs, as well as handling confidential exhibits under seal.
EFTA00009865.pdf
This document is an email chain from December 2020 between Sigrid McCawley (Boies Schiller Flexner) and an Assistant US Attorney (likely Maureen Comey) regarding the filing of a victim impact statement. The chain includes the full text of the statement from an unnamed victim opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail, describing Maxwell as a 'psychopath' who groomed and abused the victim as a child and procured victims for Jeffrey Epstein. The correspondence coordinates the formatting and timing of filing this statement as an exhibit to the government's opposition to bail.
DOJ-OGR-00022396.tif
This document is a partial transcript of a conversation involving Ghislaine Maxwell and Todd Blanche. The discussion centers on the terms of an agreement providing protection and immunity, clarifying that statements made cannot be used against the individual unless they constitute false statements. Todd Blanche, identifying as a federal officer, warns that lying to him or Special Agent Horn (from the FBI) is a crime.
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