ALISON J. NATHAN
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judge defendant |
54
Very Strong
|
90 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
24
Very Strong
|
33 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
21
Very Strong
|
66 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
19
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
40 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
46 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Judicial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Judicial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Paula Speer
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
AUDREY STRAUSS
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
U.S. government
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Prosecutor judge |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial authority |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial assignment |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
United States Government
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judge defendant |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Judge defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
None |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Professional |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court proceeding | Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell will move the Court for an Order regarding jury selection procedures. | United States Courthouse at... | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record, but consente... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Sentencing hearing | The document pertains to procedures for victims to speak at an upcoming sentencing hearing for Gh... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Proposed meeting | Request for an in camera conference to discuss filing procedures for the bail motion. | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Ongoing criminal case, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, against Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A four-and-a-half-week jury trial for Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A thirteen-day trial was held for Ghislaine Maxwell. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | A future sentencing hearing is planned, which victims Kate and Annie intend to attend. | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record but consented... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Upcoming pre-trial proceedings and trial for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Ma... | courthouse | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The ongoing criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States Courthouse, 4... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's sentencing hearing, during which Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein have requested t... | United States District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Court granted the request for Annie Farmer, Kate, and/or Virginia Giuffre to make oral statem... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The District Court imposed concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 mon... | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A court hearing is mentioned where Virginia Giuffre was expected to be present to give a statement. | courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-18 | N/A | Charging conference | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court filing | Transcript of Proceedings for the sentencing held on 6/28/2022 was filed. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court filing | Transcript of Proceedings for the trial held on 12/29/21 was filed. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | Judgment of conviction entered following a four-and-a-half-week jury trial. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | Judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | Judgment in a criminal case was imposed and filed for Ghislaine Maxwell. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | A judgment of conviction was entered against Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal judgment | A judgment was entered in the action against Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | Ghislaine Maxwell's judgment of conviction was entered in the United States District Court for th... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | Imposition of Judgment | N/A | View |
076.pdf
This document is a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal filed on December 8, 2020, in the U.S. District Court (SDNY). The plaintiff 'VE' and the defendants (Epstein's estate executors Indyke and Kahn, along with associated entities) agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice because the plaintiff resolved her claims through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. The order was signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan.
067.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated June 19, 2020, in the case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, et al. Judge Alison J. Nathan administratively denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint without prejudice, citing a stay entered by Judge Freeman in a related matter.
060.pdf
A letter from attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz of Troutman Sanders LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al. The letter serves to supplement a pending motion to dismiss by submitting a recent Opinion & Order from Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in a related case (Mary Doe v. Indyke et al.), which dismissed punitive damages claims against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein's executors. The defense argues this precedent supports dismissing punitive damages in the current action.
050.pdf
This document is a letter filed on January 2, 2020, by attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz of Troutman Sanders LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter pertains to the case 'VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al.' and requests oral argument on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Moskowitz represents the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn) and associated entities.
047.pdf
This document is a letter dated December 26, 2019, from attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz of Troutman Sanders LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It requests a one-week extension (until January 2, 2020) for the defendants, including the Co-Executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate (Indyke and Kahn) and related corporate entities, to file a reply supporting their Motion to Dismiss in the case VE v. Nine East 71st Street. The plaintiff consented to this extension request.
044.pdf
This document is a letter from Bradley J. Edwards (Edwards Pottinger LLC), attorney for Plaintiff VE, to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case VE v. Nine East 71st Street (1:19-cv-07625). The letter requests an extension of time to file an Opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, moving the deadline from December 13, 2019, to December 18, 2019. The document includes Judge Nathan's handwritten 'SO ORDERED' endorsement dated December 18, 2019.
043.pdf
This document is a letter from attorney Bradley J. Edwards to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 13, 2019, regarding the case VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al. Edwards requests a five-day extension (until December 18, 2019) to file the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The letter notes that the Defendants have been conferred with and have no objection to the extension.
042.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York in the case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street Corporation (an Epstein-affiliated entity). Judge Alison J. Nathan directs the court clerk to clear specific docket numbers (4 and 24) which were resolved by a previous docket entry.
041.pdf
This document is a letter filed on December 9, 2019, by attorney Bradley J. Edwards to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case VE v. Nine East 71st Street (1:19-cv-07625). The letter informs the court that the Plaintiff (VE) will not file an amended pleading in response to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed in November 2019, but will instead defend the existing First Amended Complaint. The document establishes the legal representation of the plaintiff by Edwards Pottinger LLC in this civil action against an Epstein-related entity.
035.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated November 27, 2019, in the case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street, Corporation (an entity associated with Jeffrey Epstein). District Judge Alison J. Nathan adjourns the initial pre-trial conference scheduled for December 6, 2019, indefinitely (sine die) due to a general pre-trial referral to Judge Freeman.
031.pdf
This document is an Order of Reference from the U.S. District Court (SDNY) filed on November 18, 2019. Judge Alison J. Nathan refers the civil case (1:19-cv-07625) between plaintiff 'VE' and defendant 'Nine East 71st Street, Corporation' (Epstein's property entity) to a Magistrate Judge for general pretrial proceedings, including scheduling, discovery, and settlement.
030-01.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of New York filed on November 15, 2019, in the case of VE v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn (Epstein Estate representatives). Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered strict protocols to protect the anonymity of the plaintiff 'VE,' requiring filings identifying the plaintiff to be sealed and limiting disclosure of their identity strictly to the defense team for legal necessity.
029.pdf
A letter from attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz to Judge Alison J. Nathan requesting a two-week extension for the Epstein Estate executors and associated entities to respond to a complaint in the case 'VE v. Nine East 71st Street'. The Judge granted the request on November 14, 2019, extending the deadline to November 29, 2019, but handwritten notes explicitly state 'No further extensions'.
028.pdf
This document is a letter from attorney Bradley J. Edwards to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al., dated November 12, 2019. Edwards opposes the Defendants' request for a two-week extension to respond to the complaint, arguing that they have already been granted a 45-day extension and that the upcoming Rule 26(f) conference should proceed. The letter notes that the Defendants' delay is related to a filing in the U.S. Virgin Islands regarding a 'claims resolution program' for the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, which the Plaintiff argues should not halt the current litigation.
027.pdf
A letter from attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated November 12, 2019, requesting a two-week extension for the Defendants (Executors of Epstein's Estate and related entities) to respond to the Plaintiff's complaint in the case VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al. The letter notes that Plaintiff's counsel refused to consent to the extension.
025.pdf
This document is a letter dated October 29, 2019, from attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz of Troutman Sanders LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter represents the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (Indyke and Kahn) and associated corporate entities in the case VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al. It serves to clarify the record regarding an ex parte order issued in a related case (Katlyn Doe) and requests an extension until November 15, 2019, to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Anonymously.
024.pdf
This document is a legal letter filed on October 16, 2019, by attorney Bradley J. Edwards to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It concerns the case 'VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al.' and serves to alert the court to a recent decision in a related Epstein case (Katlyn Doe v. Indyke) where Judge Castel allowed a plaintiff to proceed anonymously, supporting Edwards' client's similar motion.
021.pdf
This document is a legal letter dated September 18, 2019, from attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz of Troutman Sanders LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It concerns the case VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al., representing the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and associated entities. The letter confirms an agreement between the parties to accept service of the complaint and extends the defendants' deadline to respond until November 15, 2019; the request was 'So Ordered' by the judge on September 19, 2019.
007.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference' issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on August 28, 2019, in the civil case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc., and NES, LLC. The order schedules a mandatory pretrial conference for December 6, 2019, at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York. It instructs counsel to confer regarding settlement and discovery, and to submit a joint letter and Proposed Civil Case Management Plan seven days prior to the conference.
21-770_Documents%20Pt%202%20of%203.pdf
This document is a compilation of legal filings from late 2020 to early 2021 concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's repeated attempts to secure release on bail pending her trial for sex trafficking conspiracy. It includes the Government's opposition detailing her flight risk, wealth, and foreign ties (specifically to France and the UK), a victim statement from Annie Farmer, correspondence from the French Ministry of Justice confirming they do not extradite nationals, and Judge Nathan's orders denying bail. The documents highlight Maxwell's offer to renounce her foreign citizenships and pledge significant assets, all of which the Court found insufficient to assure her appearance.
22-1426_Documents.pdf
This document consists of a Docketing Notice from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dated July 8, 2022, for the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426), and a Notice of Appeal and Criminal Docket from the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed July 7, 2022. It details Maxwell's conviction and sentencing, including multi-year imprisonment terms and a $750,000 fine for charges related to conspiracy to entice minors for illegal sex acts, transport minors for sexual activity, and sex trafficking, with some counts dismissed or deemed multiplicitous.
20-3061_Documents.pdf
This document is the complete appellate record for case 20-3061, an interlocutory appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell against the United States. Maxwell appealed a District Court order denying her motion to modify a protective order, seeking permission to share confidential criminal discovery materials under seal with the judge in a related civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) to challenge the government's acquisition of evidence. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the protective order decision was not a final judgment or an appealable collateral order, and denied Maxwell's motion to consolidate the criminal appeal with the civil appeal.
20250117133905126_22-1426.pdf
This document is a formal legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the conviction and 240-month prison sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell for sex trafficking and related offenses. The court rejected Maxwell's appeal on five grounds, including arguments regarding a non-prosecution agreement, statute of limitations, juror misconduct, jury instructions, and sentencing reasonableness. The document also includes a subsequent order from November 2024 denying Maxwell's petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc.
019.pdf
A legal letter dated February 17, 2020, from attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz of Troutman Sanders LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter requests a consensual two-day extension for the Co-Executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate (Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn) to respond to a complaint filed by Anastasia Doe.
014.pdf
This document is a Court Order and Joint Stipulation filed on January 28, 2020, in the Southern District of New York regarding the case of Anastasia Doe v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The order, signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan, establishes strict protocols to maintain the plaintiff's anonymity, including requirements for sealing documents and executing non-disclosure agreements for any parties privy to her identity. It also documents the agreement between the Plaintiff's counsel (Bradley J. Edwards) and the Defendants (Executors Indyke and Kahn) to adhere to these anonymity protections.
Response Deadline
Order to respond to Defendant's letter by 5:00 p.m. on Oct 15, 2021.
Order on Redactions
Judge adopts proposed redactions for specific motions.
Order referenced as Dkt. No. 89
A previous court order from December 7, 2020, which the Defendant's filing was in accordance with.
Endorsement on Letter Motion
The Court sees no basis for sealing this letter. Defendant must justify sealing by Dec 2, 2020, or file publicly.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
Legal arguments regarding 'The Material' and subpoena service issues.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity