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 |
DOJ-OGR-00015137.jpg
This legal document details the sentencing and subsequent appeal of a defendant named Maxwell. Judge Nathan imposed a 240-month prison sentence, citing Maxwell's direct and prolonged participation with Jeffrey Epstein in a sex trafficking scheme involving underage girls, and also sentenced her to a $750,000 fine. The document notes that on February 28, 2023, the Second Circuit court affirmed Maxwell's conviction and sentence, upholding the lower court's rulings on several key issues.
DOJ-OGR-00015136.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, describes Ghislaine Maxwell's role in facilitating sexual abuse with Jeffrey Epstein, including recruiting vulnerable girls and paying them for "massages." It details the timeline of Maxwell's unsuccessful post-trial motions in early 2022, which were largely denied by Judge Nathan. The document concludes by noting Maxwell's sentencing hearing on June 28, 2022, where the government sought a sentence of at least 360 months.
DOJ-OGR-00015135.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, summarizes the evidence from Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, which concluded on December 29, 2021, with her conviction on five counts. It details testimony from four victims (Jane, Kate, Annie, Carolyn) and other evidence establishing Maxwell's instrumental role in Jeffrey Epstein's decade-long scheme to sexually abuse underage girls. The document also references post-trial motions, appeals, and the separate dismissal of perjury charges against Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00014810.jpg
This page contains a transcript of a victim impact statement delivered during court proceedings (likely sentencing) for Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker, now a psychologist, describes the long-term professional and personal fear caused by Epstein and Maxwell's threats, and urges Judge Nathan to consider the systemic and ongoing suffering of the victims when determining Maxwell's sentence. The speaker criticizes Maxwell for failing to admit guilt or provide information after her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00014807.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on August 22, 2022, likely related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. A speaker, Ms. Moe, argues for a harsh sentence, after which a victim, Ms. Farmer, delivers a powerful statement detailing the long-term psychological trauma, including a profound loss of self-trust, resulting from the abuse she suffered from both Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00001462.jpg
This document is page 22 of a legal filing dated May 27, 2021, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release. The text asserts that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion in detaining Maxwell as a flight risk and highlights Maxwell's extensive access to discovery materials via computers (13 hours/day) and legal counsel via video calls (25 hours/week) at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00001461.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, refutes claims made by an inmate named Maxwell regarding her conditions of confinement at the MDC. It distinguishes her situation from a case involving Tiffany Days, who experienced sewage flooding at a different facility (the MCC), and argues there is no evidence of such issues at the MDC. The document also counters Maxwell's claim of being in "solitary confinement" by detailing her daily access to a day room and various amenities for thirteen hours.
DOJ-OGR-00001460.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770) argues that Judge Nathan acted within her discretion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement at the MDC. It asserts that Maxwell failed to provide evidence that MDC protocols interfered with her trial preparation. The document dismisses Maxwell's complaints about conditions—specifically regarding undrinkable water, inadequate food, audio recording of legal visits, and sewage overflows—as bare assertions without evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001459.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated May 27, 2021, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding pretrial release and confinement conditions. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove MDC security protocols interfere with her trial preparation and addresses specific disputes regarding 'nighttime checks' with flashlights and the use of eye coverings. A lengthy footnote clarifies a previous inaccuracy regarding Maxwell's use of an eye mask and defends the Government against accusations of misrepresentation.
DOJ-OGR-00001458.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing from May 27, 2021, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's complaints regarding her detention conditions at the MDC. It details Judge Nathan's review of Maxwell's request to stop 15-minute nighttime flashlight checks (increased from the standard 30 minutes). The text argues these checks are justified due to suicide risk factors, including her isolation without a cellmate and the stress of a high-profile case.
DOJ-OGR-00001457.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion denying a renewed motion for temporary release by an individual named Maxwell. The Court bases its decision on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided any compelling new reasons, such as new evidence or a change in law, to warrant a reversal of its prior decision. The document dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding a recent letter briefing and a prior order by Judge Nathan, concluding that there was no error in the original determination that Maxwell is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, addresses post-conviction bail proceedings concerning 'Maxwell.' It clarifies that an Order regarding security checks at the MDC is not a bail determination and that Maxwell's 'renewed motion' for bail is substantively meritless. The document affirms Judge Nathan's prior findings that Maxwell is a risk of flight and that no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001455.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (likely a government opposition brief) from May 27, 2021, regarding case 21-770. It argues that there are no grounds to overturn Judge Nathan's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail, noting that MDC security protocols do not interfere with her trial preparation. It also argues that Maxwell's 'renewed motion' is procedurally improper and untimely under appellate rules.
DOJ-OGR-00001452.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated May 27, 2021, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's motion should be denied. It details Judge Nathan's previous findings that MDC security protocols, such as night monitoring and eye mask prohibitions, do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation or legal communications. The text notes that the appellate court has already affirmed previous orders denying Maxwell bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001451.jpg
This page from a 2021 legal filing discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement conditions at the MDC. It details her complaints regarding sleep disruption due to flashlight checks and the lack of an eye mask, noting that the MDC does not issue eye masks but allows other items to be used. The document records that Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request to modify the monitoring schedule on May 14, 2021, stating her claims were unsupported by an affidavit.
DOJ-OGR-00001450.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court filing from May 27, 2021, discussing the conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement at the MDC. It details a May 5, 2021, letter from the Government to Judge Nathan explaining that Maxwell is subject to flashlight checks every 15 minutes due to an 'enhanced security schedule,' compared to every 30 minutes for SHU inmates and hourly for general population. The document asserts these checks are for safety purposes, specifically to ensure the inmate is breathing and not in distress, noting that while Maxwell is not on suicide watch, her high-profile charges warrant increased monitoring.
DOJ-OGR-00001449.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing from May 27, 2021, related to Case 21-770 regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the procedural history of Maxwell's failed appeals for bail/pretrial release and the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decisions on April 27, 2021. The text specifically highlights Maxwell's complaints regarding her conditions of confinement at the MDC, specifically '15-minute light surveillance,' and notes that the appellate court directed such specific relief requests back to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001447.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, details the denial of a renewed bail request by a defendant named Maxwell on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan denied the application, concluding that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple citizenships, financial resources, and a history of providing incomplete information to the Court and Pretrial Services. The judge found that no combination of bail conditions could reasonably assure Maxwell's appearance at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001446.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770) summarizes Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The Judge cited Maxwell's 'substantial international ties,' 'extraordinary financial resources,' lack of US ties, and 'demonstrated sophistication' in hiding assets as reasons she poses a significant flight risk. Additionally, the Judge rejected arguments regarding the difficulty of preparing a defense while incarcerated, though mandated that the Government ensure adequate attorney-client communication.
DOJ-OGR-00001445.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770, dated May 27, 2021) outlines the Government's argument for the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. It references three denied bail applications and details a specific hearing on July 14, 2020, where Judge Nathan ruled Maxwell a flight risk based on strong evidence and the nature of the offenses. The document highlights that the indictment is supported by three victim-witnesses, corroborated by flight records and diaries.
DOJ-OGR-00001444.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing from May 27, 2021, outlines allegations against Maxwell for her role as a co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997. It details her alleged actions of identifying, enticing, and grooming victims, and notes that a Superseding Indictment expanded the charges against her, including sex trafficking conspiracy, extended the timeline of the conspiracy to 2004, and identified a fourth victim.
DOJ-OGR-00001443.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, outlines the procedural history of defendant Maxwell's attempts to secure pretrial release. It details how Judge Nathan denied her bail applications on December 28, 2020, and March 22, 2021, and how the Court affirmed these denials on April 27, 2021. The document also notes that Maxwell filed another renewed motion on May 17, 2021, and that her trial is scheduled to begin on November 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001376.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 21-770, is a filing by the defense for a defendant named Maxwell. The defense argues that the government's indictment and additional charges are not evidence, do not strengthen the case, and do not justify her continued detention. The document also refutes the government's claim of corroborated witness testimony and notes that the defense has requested a continuance for the July trial, arguing that denying bail under these circumstances would be prejudicial.
DOJ-OGR-00001341.jpg
This is the conclusion page (page 24) of a legal filing dated April 12, 2021, submitted by the Southern District of New York (Assistant US Attorneys Pomerantz, Comey, and Moe). The document argues that Judge Nathan acted correctly in denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for temporary release and concludes that the motion should remain denied.
DOJ-OGR-00001339.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated April 12, 2021, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's request for temporary release. It asserts that Judge Nathan did not abuse discretion in denying release because Maxwell has ample resources, including 'highly qualified' counsel and extensive access to computers (13 hours/day) to review discovery at the MDC. Footnotes clarify legal precedents and note that in-person attorney visitation at the MDC resumed in February 2021.
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