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-00008212.jpg
A formal letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 3, 2021. The prosecution and defense have agreed to a testimonial stipulation concerning witness Michael Dawson, and jointly request that the Court release him from the obligation to return to court on the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00008210.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 5 of 5) of a legal filing, Document 521, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated December 3, 2021. It is respectfully submitted to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan by the legal team representing Ghislaine Maxwell, which includes attorneys Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, Christian R. Everdell, and Bobbi C. Sternheim from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00008209.jpg
This legal document, dated December 3, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues that Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to call Mr. Glassman as a witness to question him about advice he gave to a person named Jane regarding cooperation with the government. The argument posits that any attorney-client privilege was waived when Mr. Glassman disclosed this advice, and that this testimony is crucial for Ms. Maxwell's defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg
This legal document is page 2 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 3, 2021. The author argues that the government cannot use attorney-client privilege to prevent Ms. Maxwell's team from cross-examining a witness named Jane about a statement her attorney, Mr. Glassman, made to her. The filing contends the privilege does not apply because the communication was not intended to be confidential and, in any case, was waived when it was relayed to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00001878.jpg
This document is the cover page for the court transcript of an arraignment and bail hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell, held via teleconference on July 14, 2020. The case, United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, was heard in the Southern District of New York before District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The page lists the legal counsel appearing for both the prosecution, led by U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss, and the defense, represented by attorneys from the law firms Cohen & Gresser, LLP and Haddon Morgan & Foreman, P.C.
DOJ-OGR-00001866.jpg
This legal letter, sent by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim on behalf of her client Ghislaine Maxwell to Judge Alison J. Nathan, formally complains about Maxwell's harsh and restrictive conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The letter refutes a previous communication from MDC staff, detailing issues such as significant weight loss, isolation, constant surveillance, and a recent quarantine that hindered her defense preparation. Sternheim renews the request for the MDC Warden, Heriberto Tellez, to respond directly to the Court and justify these conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00001864.jpg
This legal document, dated November 25, 2020, is a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing for the sealing of information related to Ms. Maxwell's bail application. The author contends that the privacy of Ms. Maxwell's sureties (co-signers) and other third parties outweighs the public's right to access, citing fears of harassment and legal precedent from cases like U.S. v. Amodeo and U.S. v. Nejad. The filing requests an in-camera conference to discuss the redaction of the sureties' names and other confidential materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001863.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated November 25, 2020, arguing for the sealing of certain court documents. The filing cites extreme harassment and violent threats against Ms. Maxwell on social media as a reason to protect the identities of sureties. It also mentions a confidential financial report on Ms. Maxwell prepared by Macalvins Limited and discusses legal precedents regarding the presumption of public access to court records.
DOJ-OGR-00001862.jpg
This is a letter dated November 25, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys at Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The attorneys state their intention to file a renewed motion for bail for Ms. Maxwell and request an 'in camera' conference to discuss filing portions of the motion and supporting materials under seal. They argue for sealing to protect sensitive and private information concerning Ms. Maxwell and the third-party sureties (family and friends) supporting her bail application.
DOJ-OGR-00001856.jpg
This legal document is a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated November 30, 2020, arguing for the redaction of the identities of individuals supporting Ms. Maxwell's bail application. The letter contends that public disclosure would violate their privacy and expose them to significant personal and physical danger, citing stalking by the tabloid press, physical threats, and the intense public opprobrium surrounding the case. It references legal precedent from United States v. Amodeo to support the court's power to protect innocent third parties from public scandal.
DOJ-OGR-00001853.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated November 25, 2020, filed on December 4, 2020. The defense argues against the public identification of Ms. Maxwell's bail sureties (co-signers), citing significant privacy interests and fears of harassment for the sureties and their children. The defense requests an in camera conference and notes that the government consents to sealing the names of cosigners and confidential discovery materials but opposes the conference.
DOJ-OGR-00001852.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated November 25, 2020. The defense argues for sealing the identities of sureties and third parties (including children) due to severe safety concerns, citing graphic social media death threats against Ghislaine Maxwell as evidence of the danger. The document also references a financial report by Macalvins Limited covering Maxwell's finances from 2015-2020 and cites legal precedents regarding the presumption of public access versus privacy interests.
DOJ-OGR-00001847.jpg
This is a court order filed on December 3, 2020, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses a request by Maxwell's defense counsel to seal letters related to a renewed motion for bail. The court approves the defense's proposed redactions, noting that the Government does not oppose them, based on legal standards regarding judicial documents and privacy interests.
DOJ-OGR-00001846.jpg
A legal letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison Nathan regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government consents to defense requests to redact the identities of proposed bail cosigners to protect their privacy but objects to holding a sealed 'in camera' hearing for the bail application, citing the public's and victims' right to observe proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00001845.jpg
This court order, dated December 2, 2020, addresses the individualized detention conditions of Ms. Maxwell, noting concerns about the lack of redress for serious conditions. It directs Warden Tellez to provide a first-hand accounting to the Court and counsel regarding these conditions. Additionally, MDC legal counsel is ordered to submit a letter to the Court by December 4, 2020, for review to determine if further information is needed.
DOJ-OGR-00001842.jpg
This is a joint letter from the prosecution and defense in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The parties inform the court they have been unable to reach an agreement regarding the defense's request for information on Maxwell's detention conditions at the MDC. The Government proposes that MDC legal counsel submit a written response, while the defense insists that Warden Heriberto Tellez appear personally before the Court to address concerns about confinement conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00001841.jpg
This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 1, 2020, in the Southern District of New York. The order compels the Government to respond by December 2, 2020, to two letter requests filed by the Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, on November 25 and November 30, which concern proposed redactions. The judge orders that the letters remain temporarily sealed pending the court's decision on the redaction request.
DOJ-OGR-00001832.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated October 6, 2020, regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution requests permission to delay the disclosure of sensitive evidence, specifically photographs and documents related to victims of Jeffrey Epstein, to the defense until eight weeks before trial. The government argues this delay is necessary to protect an ongoing investigation and prevent the premature release of sensitive victim information, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) as legal justification.
DOJ-OGR-00001831.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the U.S. Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, requesting an extension for producing approximately 1.2 million documents seized from Epstein's residences. The Government asks to move the deadline to November 23, 2020, and to extend the motions schedule. Judge Alison J. Nathan grants the request in an order dated November 9, 2020, setting new deadlines for motions into early 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001825.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on November 9, 2020, dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Maxwell sought to appeal a lower court's denial of her request to modify a protective order and attempted to consolidate this with the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil case. The court outlines legal precedents regarding the 'final judgment rule' and 'collateral order exception' to justify the dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00001817.jpg
This is page 2 of a court order dated November 5, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order outlines the procedure for the Government to request modification of its disclosure obligations if there are concerns about witness safety, national security, or other interests. It also lists six potential sanctions the Court may impose if the Government fails to comply with the disclosure order, ranging from specifying production terms to dismissing charges.
DOJ-OGR-00001816.jpg
This document is a Court Order filed on November 5, 2020, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The order formally reminds the prosecution (the Government) of its continuing legal obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence (Brady material) and impeachment evidence (Giglio material) to the defense pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f).
DOJ-OGR-00001812.jpg
This is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison Nathan regarding the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*. The Government refutes defense accusations of abandoning discovery deadlines, noting they have already produced 350,000 pages and are preparing to release 1.2 million documents from devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein's residences. The letter also addresses complaints regarding the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) and asserts compliance with the Court's July 15, 2020 scheduling order.
DOJ-OGR-00001810.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated October 23, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team. The text details significant ongoing technical failures at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) regarding Maxwell's ability to access discovery materials on provided hard drives. Despite multiple letters and conference calls between August and October 2020, the Government and MDC IT staff failed to provide a functional computer or readable files, severely impairing Maxwell's ability to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001808.jpg
This legal document, dated October 23, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the U.S. Government is improperly withholding critical information. The defense claims the government has not provided details about Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement or meetings held in 2016 to investigate Maxwell. The filing accuses the government of contradicting its earlier court assurances by now disclaiming responsibility for investigative files from Florida that were transferred to the New York F.B.I. office.
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