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-00001739.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 47 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 21, 2020. The Government argues for the redaction and sealing of a 'Defense Letter' and its exhibits, citing an active and ongoing grand jury investigation that resulted in new charges the previous month. The Government requests that both the unredacted Defense Letter and the instant letter be filed under seal to protect the integrity of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing dated August 21, 2020, addressed to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The author, presumably the Government, argues for keeping grand jury-related exhibits under seal by citing historical precedent for grand jury secrecy and analyzing the First Amendment's presumptive right of public access. The filing references multiple court cases to support the position that sealing is justified and necessary to protect higher values, even when a presumptive right of access applies.
DOJ-OGR-00001737.jpg
This is a legal letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 21, 2020, concerning the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The government requests permission to file the defendant's recent letter with redactions and to file all associated exhibits under seal. The justification for this request is an ongoing grand jury investigation, with the government citing the need to protect confidential materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001736.jpg
This is the final page (page 5) of a legal filing by the US Attorney's Office in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government argues that the defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in separate civil cases should be denied because the materials are irrelevant to the civil litigation and the request attempts to bypass a protective order. The Government asserts the defendant is attempting to use these materials merely to attack the Government in a forum where it cannot respond.
DOJ-OGR-00001735.jpg
The Government argues against a criminal defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, citing a lack of precedent and the need to maintain grand jury secrecy. The document references several cases to support the separation of criminal and civil proceedings and refutes the defendant's claims of impropriety regarding how the Government obtained materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001734.jpg
This document is page 3 of a government filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated August 21, 2020. The government argues against modifying a protective order, asserting that the defendant should not be allowed to use discovery materials from this criminal case in her parallel civil cases. The filing highlights that the grand jury investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators is active and ongoing, and that disseminating these materials could compromise witness privacy and the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00001732.jpg
This document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated August 21, 2020, regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government opposes the defendant's request to use confidential discovery materials from this criminal case in unrelated civil litigation. The letter notes that over 165,000 pages of discovery have been produced and argues that the materials in question relate to an ongoing criminal investigation and grand jury proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00001730.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on August 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order establishes a briefing schedule for a letter motion filed by the Defendant on August 17, 2020, which seeks to modify a protective order and be filed under seal. The Government's opposition is due by August 21, and the Defendant's reply is due by August 24.
DOJ-OGR-00001725.jpg
This legal document, dated August 17, 2020, is a filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense team to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues for court intervention regarding Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement under the BOP and requests an order compelling the government to disclose the identities of three core alleged victims. The defense contends that withholding these identities until just before trial is prejudicial and prevents them from adequately preparing a defense for alleged conduct that occurred 25 years ago.
DOJ-OGR-00001723.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 13, 2020, is a response from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to a defendant's requests regarding housing and access to discovery. The prosecution argues that the defendant's application is moot because the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has already granted the defendant extensive daily access to discovery materials from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The document concludes by requesting that the defendant's application be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00001722.jpg
This document is page 4 of a Government filing (Document 41) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), dated August 13, 2020. The Government argues against disclosing witness identities prematurely before the July 2021 trial to protect victim privacy. Additionally, the Government rejects the defendant's complaints regarding her confinement conditions at the MDC, asserting that monitoring protocols are appropriate for safety and security, and clarifying that attorney-client calls are visually observed but not audited.
DOJ-OGR-00001721.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan in a criminal case, dated August 13, 2020. The Government argues that the defendant's request for more detailed charges is premature and should be handled through a formal motion for a bill of particulars after discovery is complete. The filing also expresses significant concern over the defense counsel's recent actions in a related civil case, suggesting they may have violated a protective order by publicly referencing sealed discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001719.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated August 13, 2020, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The prosecution is opposing recent requests from the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, for an early disclosure of government witnesses and for the court to intervene with the Bureau of Prisons. The government argues these requests are premature and meritless, citing the early stage of discovery and previous denials of similar applications by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00001718.jpg
This is the final page (6 of 6) of a legal filing submitted on August 10, 2020, to Judge Alison J. Nathan by attorneys Mark S. Cohen and Christian R. Everdell on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The document requests that Maxwell be released to the general population within the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center) and be granted increased access to a computer terminal to review discovery materials for her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001716.jpg
This document is a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated August 10, 2020. The defense requests the disclosure of the identities of 'Victims 1-3' to prepare for trial and argues that Maxwell is being subjected to uniquely harsh confinement conditions at the MDC as a direct reaction to the BOP's failure to prevent Jeffrey Epstein's suicide in 2019. The letter details Epstein's timeline of detention and death to contextualize the extreme surveillance and isolation Maxwell is facing.
DOJ-OGR-00001714.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 10, 2020. The defense argues that the government is delaying the identification of 'Victims 1-3' and providing discovery too slowly, which impairs their ability to investigate allegations spanning 25 years across multiple locations (NY, FL, NM, UK). The text details a timeline of discovery disputes following Maxwell's July 2020 arrest, noting that a 13,000-page initial production failed to clearly identify the accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00001713.jpg
This is a letter motion dated August 10, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorneys (Cohen & Gresser LLP) to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense is requesting two court orders: one to compel the government to disclose the identities of 'Victims 1-3' mentioned in the indictment, and another to direct the Bureau of Prisons to move Maxwell to the general population to facilitate access to discovery materials. The document includes a handwritten and stamped order from Judge Nathan dated August 11, 2020, setting a deadline of August 13 for the government's response.
DOJ-OGR-00001710.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal motion filed on August 10, 2020, by attorney Christian R. Everdell on behalf of his client, Ms. Maxwell. The motion requests that the court, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan, grant Maxwell's request to be released into the general population of the MDC and be given increased computer access to review discovery materials for her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001709.jpg
This document is a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing that the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement at the MDC violate her Sixth Amendment rights by severely restricting her ability to review discovery materials. The defense contends that the BOP's proposed three-hour daily window for reviewing documents is insufficient given the volume of evidence and conflicts with necessary time for hygiene and exercise.
DOJ-OGR-00001708.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing dated August 10, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues for the disclosure of the identities of Victims 1-3 and protests the harsh confinement conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. The document explicitly claims Maxwell's treatment (isolation, 24-hour surveillance, suicide watch protocols) is a direct reaction by the BOP to the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein at the MCC in 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00001707.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 38) dated August 10, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for the pretrial disclosure of the identities of 'Victims 1-3,' citing legal precedents that a defendant's right to prepare a defense outweighs privacy interests when a protective order is in place. The filing asserts that because the victims are now adults and many have already spoken publicly or filed civil suits against Epstein and Maxwell, there is no risk of intimidation.
DOJ-OGR-00001706.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on August 10, 2020, concerning the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has delayed discovery production and failed to identify "Victims 1-3," which hinders the defense's ability to investigate allegations dating back 25 years involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text details the timeline of procedural events, protective orders, and discovery deadlines.
DOJ-OGR-00001704.jpg
This legal document is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020. The order resolves a dispute in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN by adopting the Government's proposed protective order and rejecting the Defense's request for further restrictions on discovery materials as unwarranted and unprecedented.
DOJ-OGR-00001703.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated July 30, 2020. The Court rules in favor of the Government regarding a protective order, restricting Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense team from publicly disclosing the identities of alleged victims and witnesses, even those who may have previously made public statements about Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. The judge argues that participating in a criminal investigation warrants privacy protection distinct from previous voluntary public statements.
DOJ-OGR-00001702.jpg
This document is a Memorandum Opinion & Order filed on July 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. Judge Alison J. Nathan addresses a dispute over a protective order, ultimately adopting the Government's proposed version over Maxwell's requests to publicly reference alleged victims and restrict Government witnesses' use of discovery materials. The document cites legal standards for protective orders under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).
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