Judge Nathan
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 filing | At Judge Preska's suggestion, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan seeking modification o... | Court | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell temporary release, finding her to be a flight risk. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Criminal case against Ms. Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial of Maxwell, where Jane testified, defense counsel raised questions to Judge Nathan, and... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Appeal of Judge Nathan's order. | this Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial where testimony was heard from Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A hearing where Judge Nathan examined Juror 50 in detail about his experiences and ability to be ... | The District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial in a detailed written opinion. | The District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Judge Nathan issued an Order prohibiting Maxwell from using certain criminal discovery materials ... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell filed a motion to modify the Protective Order, which was denied by Judge Nathan. | The Court | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | Judge Nathan imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment on Maxwell, plus fi... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A rebuttal argument being made by the prosecution (Ms. Comey) to the jury in a criminal trial. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court order | The district court, via Judge Nathan, denied Ms. Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order. | district court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Post-conviction bail proceedings. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal finding | Judge Nathan finding, three times, that the Government established Maxwell is a risk of flight an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Judicial ruling | Judge Preska declined to stay the unsealing process but stated she would reevaluate if Judge Nath... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal appeal | An appeal by Ms. Maxwell addressing an order by Judge Nathan declining to modify a criminal prote... | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A victim impact statement being delivered to a judge regarding the sentencing of Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Sentencing hearing | A court proceeding for the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell, where her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, presents... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Filing date of the court document (Sentencing submission or transcript). | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Summation being delivered in court by Ms. Menninger | Courtroom (contextual) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing of transcript | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Summation by Ms. Menninger in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Ms. Menninger delivers a summation (closing argument) in a criminal trial. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A summation by Ms. Moe in the trial of Maxwell, arguing for her guilt based on her complicity wit... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019617.jpg
This legal document, dated October 2, 2020, details a dispute in a criminal case concerning a Protective Order. The defendant, Maxwell, sought to modify the order on August 17, 2020, to use discovery materials from her criminal case in separate civil proceedings, despite having previously agreed not to. The Government filed an opposition to this motion on August 21, 2020, citing the original terms of the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00019615.jpg
This legal document, dated October 2, 2020, outlines a series of events in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell. It details that on July 30, 2020, Judge Nathan issued a protective order preventing criminal discovery materials from being used in civil litigation, and on September 2, 2020, denied Maxwell's motion to modify this order. Consequently, Maxwell filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019609.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020 (Document 82 in Case 20-3061). It outlines arguments asserting that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. The document references Judge Nathan and details the structure of the argument spanning 30 pages.
DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. It outlines the three legal conditions required for such a writ, citing precedents like 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.'. The document asserts that all three conditions are met, specifically claiming that Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and that the petitioner, Ms. Maxwell, has no other legal recourse, referencing her request to Judge Preska.
DOJ-OGR-00019603.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing for the ability to share sealed information with Judge Preska to litigate the "Martindell issue," which she claims the government improperly handled. As an alternative, the filing requests that the appellate court exercise mandamus jurisdiction to compel the district court to modify a protective order, citing legal precedent to support both arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00019602.jpg
This legal document is a filing in Ms. Maxwell's civil appeal, arguing against an order by Judge Preska to unseal her deposition. The core argument is that unsealing the deposition would prejudice her ability to properly litigate the government's conduct (the 'Martindell' issue) before Judge Nathan in her separate criminal case. The document refutes the government's characterization of her argument, stating she is not asking the appeals court to rule on the merits of the criminal case issue, but rather to preserve the status quo to protect her Fifth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00019597.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, concerning Case 20-3061. It presents a legal argument distinguishing the current appeal from *Flanagan v. United States*, asserting that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding Judge Nathan's order is comparable to a bail reduction motion because the harm (unsealing deposition materials) would be irreversible ("the cat is irretrievably out of the bag") if not addressed immediately. The text argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share information from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska to prevent the unsealing order from going into effect without reconsideration.
DOJ-OGR-00019596.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061, dated Sept 28, 2020) outlines a dispute over appellate jurisdiction. Ms. Maxwell is requesting permission to share facts with another judge under seal. The document argues against the government's position that the court lacks jurisdiction, asserting that Judge Nathan's previous order meets the requirements of the 'collateral order doctrine' despite the government's strict interpretation.
DOJ-OGR-00019593.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically an appeal, related to Case 20-3061. The appellant, Ms. Maxwell, challenges a district court order by Judge Nathan that denied her request to share information with another judge. The filing argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review this order under the collateral order doctrine, countering the government's contention that the order is unreviewable.
DOJ-OGR-00019587.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in which Ms. Maxwell requests permission from the court to be excused from publicly filing a redacted version of 'Appendix Volume 2'. The justification is that the appendix and related briefs contain confidential information shielded by a criminal protective order. The filing connects this request to two ongoing appeals she has filed: one against an order by Judge Nathan and another against an order by Judge Preska in the related case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, with a consolidated oral argument scheduled for October 13.
DOJ-OGR-00019585.jpg
This is a Motion Information Statement filed on September 24, 2020, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case of United States v. Maxwell (Docket No. 20-3061). Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Adam Mueller, is requesting permission to file several documents under seal, including an unredacted brief and Appendix Volume 2, arguing they contain confidential material. The motion states that the opposing counsel for the United States, Maurene Comey, does not oppose this request.
DOJ-OGR-00019584.jpg
This document is a table of contents for a legal filing in Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020. It lists various documents filed in August 2020, including letters, an affidavit, and exhibits related to modifying a protective order and submitting proposed redactions under seal, involving parties identified as 'JSP' and 'Judge Nathan'.
DOJ-OGR-00019437.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The author argues that the Court should overturn a district court's decision, which would allow Ms. Maxwell to share information from her criminal case (under Judge Nathan) with Judge Preska in her civil case. The filing contends that the government's argument to prevent this sharing lacks a principled justification.
DOJ-OGR-00019434.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, argues that the government strategically chose not to intervene to prevent the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's depositions. The filing suggests this inaction allows the government to later claim any violation of a prior ruling was harmless. It supports its argument by citing legal precedents, such as 'Louis Vuitton' and 'SEC v. Boock', which warn of the dangers for defendants who waive their Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00019433.jpg
This document is page 29 (labeled Page 34 of 58 in the header) of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the government is acting inconsistently by intervening to stay proceedings in the civil case 'Doe v. Indyke' to protect the criminal prosecution's integrity, while failing to do the same in 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' regarding unsealing deposition materials. The text highlights that Jane Doe alleges abuse by both Epstein and Maxwell when she was a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00019431.jpg
This document is page 32 of a legal filing (dated Sept 24, 2020) arguing against the unsealing of deposition material. The text contends that unsealing the material would prevent Judge Preska from reconsidering her decision based on new information about how the government obtained the material, and would prejudice Ms. Maxwell's ability to argue before Judge Nathan that perjury counts should be dismissed due to the government's circumvention of the 'Martindell' precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00019429.jpg
This legal document describes the predicament of Ms. Maxwell, who is involved in both a civil and a criminal case presided over by two different judges, Judge Preska and Judge Nathan. A protective order in the criminal case, issued by Judge Nathan, prevents her from sharing relevant information with Judge Preska in the civil case. Her requests to both judges to resolve this issue have been denied, placing her in what the document calls a 'Catch-22 situation'.
DOJ-OGR-00019427.jpg
This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. It argues that Judge Nathan erred by not modifying a protective order, preventing Ghislaine Maxwell from sharing sealed material with Judge Preska, which the defense claims is necessary to protect Maxwell's rights under the *Martindell* precedent. The document highlights the complexity of the litigation, noting that six sets of judicial officers are handling interrelated questions regarding Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019426.jpg
This document is a legal filing, likely part of an appeal brief, dated September 24, 2020. The filing argues that the appellate court should overturn Judge Nathan's decision and modify a criminal protective order. The purpose of the modification is to allow Ms. Maxwell to share sealed information with Judge Preska regarding how the government obtained her deposition transcripts, which Judge Preska is considering unsealing.
DOJ-OGR-00019425.jpg
This document is page 21 (filed as page 26) of a legal brief in Case 20-3061, filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that a writ of mandamus is appropriate because Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and Judge Preska's unsealing order relies on inconsistent decisions within the Southern District of New York. The text discusses the unsealing of deposition materials and claims prejudice against Ms. Maxwell, though specific details are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019424.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 60) filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that if Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan's order via the 'collateral order doctrine,' the appellate court should instead issue a 'writ of mandamus' to modify the protective order. The document outlines legal precedents and the three specific conditions required to issue such a writ.
DOJ-OGR-00019422.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (likely the Second Circuit appeal regarding Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines Maxwell's argument that the civil appeal court should reverse Judge Preska's order to unseal her depositions. She argues that unsealing the documents now would prejudice her ability to challenge the government's conduct (specifically an alleged violation of 'Martindell' by obtaining civil depositions for criminal use) before Judge Nathan in her pending criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019418.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that an appeal concerning Judge Nathan's order should proceed. The author contends that the appeal is separate from an ongoing criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, will not cause delays, and that waiting for the criminal trial to conclude would render the issue moot. The document references a stay on Judge Preska's order to unseal deposition material as a reason for the current proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019413.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing from September 24, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's appeals. It outlines the procedural posture of two related appeals: one regarding Judge Preska's order unsealing deposition materials in the civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell), and the current appeal regarding Judge Nathan's denial of a motion to modify a criminal protective order. Maxwell has moved to consolidate these two appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00019412.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, describes a procedural issue in a case involving Ms. Maxwell. A criminal protective order issued by Judge Nathan prevented Ms. Maxwell from sharing critical information with Judge Preska regarding an unsealing process. Following Judge Preska's suggestion, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan to modify the order, seeking permission to share what she had learned under seal.
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