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 |
DOJ-OGR-00008364.jpg
A letter dated December 13, 2021, from defense attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter informs the court of the defense's intention to question attorneys Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman and argues that these questions do not violate attorney-client privilege. The document cites legal precedents regarding the burden of proof for privilege claims.
DOJ-OGR-00008363.jpg
This document is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 14, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order directs the Government to respond to a letter from the Defense regarding witnesses by 10:00 p.m. that day. It also orders the Defense to provide its anticipated witness order to the Court by 12:00 p.m. the same day.
DOJ-OGR-00008361.jpg
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government informs the court that, after conferring with the defense, they will not agree to a stipulation regarding the testimony of Robert Glassman. The Government argues that a specific statement in an email is inadmissible and requires context to be understood by the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008360.jpg
This is a legal letter dated December 12, 2021, from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim informs the court of logistical issues with defense witnesses, including travel from abroad, and notifies the judge that three witnesses have requested to testify under pseudonyms. The letter states that the government opposes this request and warns that the court's ruling could compromise Maxwell's right to present her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008357.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated December 12, 2021, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The prosecution requests that the court order the defense in the Ghislaine Maxwell case to provide a list of their witnesses for the upcoming week by 10:00 a.m. the next day. The letter also notes that the defense recently made an untimely production of other materials, and the Government intends to file a motion to preclude them.
DOJ-OGR-00008355.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated December 9, 2021, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter is a filing in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It presents a jointly proposed limiting instruction for the jury regarding Government Exhibit 52, specifying that the exhibit is only to be considered for showing a potential link between Maxwell and listed contacts, not for the truth of the information itself.
DOJ-OGR-00008311.jpg
This document is the cover page for a court hearing transcript from the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. The hearing took place on November 23, 2021, before District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The page lists the appearances of the legal counsel for both the prosecution, led by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, and the defense team for Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008310.jpg
This is the final page of a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 9, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order overrules the Defense's objections to exhibit GX 52 and instructs the parties to confer on a limiting instruction for the jury and to prepare a stipulation regarding the authenticity of other government exhibits (52A, 52D, 52E, 52F, 52G, and 52H).
DOJ-OGR-00008303.jpg
This legal document is a Memorandum Opinion & Order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 9, 2021. The judge overrules the Defense's objections to the admission of Government Exhibit 52 on grounds of authentication and hearsay. The ruling follows testimony from the Government's authenticating witness, Juan Alessi, and establishes the legal standard for the evidence's admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008301.jpg
This is a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 9, 2021, regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government is requesting permission to redact a letter motion concerning the admission of Government Exhibit 52 and to seal or redact Exhibits A and B to protect the privacy of minor victims, witnesses, and third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00008270.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against the government's attempt to admit 'Exhibit 52' as evidence in a trial involving Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that the government has failed to authenticate the exhibit, has abandoned its original premise that it was Ms. Maxwell's book, and that admitting it at this late stage would be unfair. The argument is bolstered by the government's decision not to call a key witness, 'Employee-1', who was supposed to link the exhibit to Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008269.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 8, 2021, in a case before The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The testimony features Ms. Maxwell being questioned about a document, which she denies creating, knowing the author of, or having on her computer. She specifically denies providing information for a section titled 'Massage Florida' and refutes the characterization that she 'brought' a woman to 'Jeffrey' who was subsequently hired.
DOJ-OGR-00008268.jpg
This legal document, dated December 8, 2021, is page 4 of a filing addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. It argues that testimony from Ms. Maxwell is insufficient to authenticate Deposition Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 52 for admission as evidence. The document quotes Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 testimony where she denies knowledge of the document's creation and states it was not her job to keep track of Jeffrey Epstein's contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00008267.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing against the government's attempt to use her April 2016 deposition testimony. The core argument is that "Deposition Exhibit 13" is an unauthenticated photocopy and is fundamentally different from "Exhibit 52." This claim is supported by testimony from Mr. Alessi, who noted a significant physical discrepancy between Exhibit 52 and books he saw while employed by Mr. Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00008266.jpg
This legal document, dated December 8, 2021, is an argument addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument contends that the government cannot admit a piece of evidence, referred to as Exhibit 52, because it cannot be properly authenticated as a business record under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The filing asserts that Ms. Maxwell disclaimed all knowledge of a related document (Exhibit 13) during a deposition, and therefore the government fails to meet the legal requirements for its admission.
DOJ-OGR-00008264.jpg
This is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated December 8, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan, directs Juror Number 70 to submit receipts for transportation costs to the Jury Administrator. It further instructs the Clerk of Court to reimburse the juror for these expenses upon receiving the receipts.
DOJ-OGR-00008246.jpg
This document is a transcript from a pretrial conference held on December 8, 2021, for the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan presides over the session, with legal teams for both the government (led by Maurene Comey) and the defense (led by Bobbi C. Sternheim) introducing themselves. The primary purpose of the conference is to discuss the logistics of jury selection (voir dire) and review lists of prospective jurors based on questionnaires administered in November.
DOJ-OGR-00008245.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for a conference in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on November 15, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. It lists the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and the legal counsel appearing for both the prosecution and the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008236.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on December 5, 2021. The order addresses a motion from the Government concerning the testimony of 'Witness-3' and compels both the Government and the Defense to submit letters to the court on the same day with specific deadlines. The order also reminds the parties to be mindful of sealing requirements under Rule 412.
DOJ-OGR-00008232.jpg
This document is page 8 of a defense filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated December 5, 2021. The defense argues against the admission of government evidence, specifically photos of vibrators, a stuffed tiger, and a stuffed dog, claiming 'Jane' did not identify these specific items in her testimony. The defense also challenges photos of the interior of Epstein's New York apartment, arguing they are unauthenticated and potentially misleading.
DOJ-OGR-00008231.jpg
This legal filing from December 5, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues for the exclusion of specific evidence in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense contends that 2019 photographs of Jeffrey Epstein's house are irrelevant and prejudicial because items like massage tables and artwork are 'highly mobile' and may not reflect the conditions present when the accuser, Jane, was there in 1994-1996. The document asserts that the photos are inflammatory and lack connection to Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008230.jpg
This legal document, part of a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 5, 2021, presents an argument criticizing the government's handling of photographic evidence. The author contends that the government failed to properly authenticate 2019 photos as representative of a scene from 1994-1996 by not showing them to a witness named Jane during her testimony. The document dismisses the government's rationale that doing so would have diminished the photos' value as independent corroboration, suggesting the real reason was a fear that Jane's response would not support their case.
DOJ-OGR-00008225.jpg
This document is a legal letter dated December 5, 2021, from defense attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense objects to the government's attempt to introduce the '900 series' of photographs of Jeffrey Epstein's New York apartment taken in 2019, arguing they have not been authenticated as accurately representing the apartment during the relevant timeframe of 1994-1996. The letter urges the court to reaffirm its previous ruling from December 3 excluding the photos based on Rules 401 and 403.
DOJ-OGR-00008223.jpg
This is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 5, 2021. The prosecution outlines its plan to question 'Witness-3' about sexual activity with Epstein, adhering to the court's order to avoid explicit details. The government expresses concern that this limited questioning could be misinterpreted by the jury as a lack of witness credibility, especially in light of the defense's opening argument.
DOJ-OGR-00008214.jpg
This is a legal filing from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 4, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution is moving to admit photographs from inside Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence as evidence. The government argues that these photographs are relevant to the case because they serve to corroborate the testimony of a witness identified by the pseudonym 'Jane'.
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