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-00001701.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 12 of 12) of a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is an order signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020, in New York, stating that Defense Counsel may apply to the Court for modifications. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00001701).
DOJ-OGR-00001690.jpg
This document is the first page of a Protective Order filed on July 30, 2020, in the Southern District of New York case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan outlines that the Government intends to produce discovery materials that are sensitive, relate to ongoing investigations, or contain personal identifying information. The order is designed to prevent premature disclosure or public dissemination of these materials to protect privacy and the integrity of the ongoing investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00001689.jpg
This document is the final page of a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel (Cohen & Gresser LLP) to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 29, 2020. The defense argues for a protective order to restrict prospective witnesses—specifically those who have also filed civil suits against Maxwell—from using criminal discovery materials to bolster their civil cases or leak information to the press. The document highlights the intertwined nature of the criminal indictment and existing civil complaints.
DOJ-OGR-00001688.jpg
This legal document is page 4 of a filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense team to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 29, 2020. The defense argues that the government's proposed protective order would improperly restrict their ability to investigate and prepare for trial by limiting contact with witnesses, including accusers who have already publicly identified themselves. The defense also refutes the government's interpretation of their own proposed order, clarifying its intended scope and purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00001687.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated July 29, 2020, presents the defense's argument against a government-proposed protective order in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends the order would impede their ability to investigate alleged victims and witnesses, citing legal precedents where individuals waived their privacy rights by making information public. The document asserts the need for a full investigation to challenge the credibility of accusers and mount an effective defense for their client, who is presumed innocent.
DOJ-OGR-00001686.jpg
This legal document, dated July 29, 2020, is a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues against the government's proposed restrictive protective order, asserting their right to publicly reference alleged victims who have already identified themselves in media, other lawsuits, and public forums related to both Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. They contrast their broader proposed language with the government's version, which they claim would unfairly limit them to referencing only one person who spoke at Maxwell's bail hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00001671.jpg
This document is the first page of a [Proposed] Protective Order filed on July 28, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case number 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan presides over the document, which outlines the Government's intent to produce discovery materials to the defendant while restricting their dissemination to protect privacy, ongoing investigations, and prevent prejudicial pretrial publicity due to the sensitive nature of the information.
DOJ-OGR-00001670.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 28, 2020, is the U.S. Government's response to a defendant's motion in a criminal case. The Government argues against the defendant's attempt to restrict its use of gathered materials and to impose restrictions on third parties, calling the request unprecedented and without legal basis. The filing, submitted by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss to Judge Alison J. Nathan, urges the court to deny the defendant's motion and implement the Government's own proposed protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00001668.jpg
This document is page 5 of a Government filing from July 28, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues against a defense proposal that would allow them to publicly name victims and witnesses, stating that such a request is broad, unjustified, and contrary to the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The text highlights the distinction between the previous Epstein protective order and the current case, emphasizing that victims should not fear reprisal or shaming by having their identities broadcast by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001667.jpg
This document is a page from a government filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the defendant's broad proposal for a protective order, asserting that it would unfairly expose victims who made minor public statements years ago to intense public scrutiny without their consent. The government contends this is unnecessary for defense preparation and inconsistent with the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
DOJ-OGR-00001666.jpg
This is page 3 of a government filing dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The government argues against the defense's request to publicly name victims/witnesses, calling the defense's argument 'absurd' and 'offensive' particularly regarding the suggestion that victims derive a 'benefit' from public identification. The document outlines the proposed protective order which would allow defense counsel to discuss identities privately but prohibits public dissemination to prevent harassment and intimidation.
DOJ-OGR-00001665.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 28, 2020, is the government's argument against a defendant's request to publicly name victims of herself or Epstein. The government contends that such disclosure is inappropriate and violates victims' rights to privacy and safety, citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act and several legal precedents. The filing supports a proposed protective order that would prevent public identification of victims while still allowing the defense to prepare for trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001664.jpg
This is a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The government requests the court enter its proposed protective order and objects to two specific inclusions sought by the defendant, particularly regarding the public naming of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00001663.jpg
This document is a letter filed on July 27, 2020, by the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government requests time to respond to a defense motion for a protective order, noting that discussions on the matter were ongoing as of the previous evening. At the bottom of the document, Judge Nathan orders a schedule for the response (due July 28) and reply (due July 29), and mandates the parties meet and confer by phone.
DOJ-OGR-00001662.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated July 27, 2020, from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The prosecution requests an opportunity to respond to a motion for a protective order filed that morning by the defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter notes that the defense's filing was a surprise, as the Government believed discussions to jointly propose a protective order were still ongoing.
DOJ-OGR-00001648.jpg
This document is a proposed protective order for the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed in the Southern District of New York on July 27, 2020. The order aims to manage the disclosure of sensitive materials from the government to the defense during the discovery process. It seeks to protect the privacy of individuals, prevent impediment to the ongoing investigation, and avoid prejudicial pretrial publicity by controlling the dissemination of confidential information.
DOJ-OGR-00001646.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal letter dated July 27, 2020, from attorneys Christian R. Everdell and Mark S. Cohen of COHEN & GRESSER LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter concludes a submission requesting that the Court enter a proposed protective order on behalf of their client, Ms. Maxwell. The document is part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
DOJ-OGR-00001645.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2020, is a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing argues in favor of Maxwell's proposed protective order, which would allow her defense team to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have already spoken on the public record regarding Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. It contrasts this with the government's more restrictive proposal, arguing the government's position is 'broader than necessary' and would hinder the defense's ability to prepare for trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001644.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2020, is a filing in the criminal case of Ms. Maxwell, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It discusses the legal standard for a protective order over discovery materials, arguing that restrictions should apply not only to the defense but also to the government's potential witnesses and their counsel. The filing expresses concern that these witnesses, who are also involved in civil litigation against Ms. Maxwell, might use the discovery materials to support their civil cases or in public statements.
DOJ-OGR-00001643.jpg
This is a letter dated July 27, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys at Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York. The attorneys request the court to enter a protective order for discovery materials in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter highlights that while most terms have been agreed upon with the government, two key disputes remain: whether government witnesses should face the same restrictions as the defense regarding discovery materials, and whether the defense should be allowed to identify alleged victims or witnesses who are already public.
DOJ-OGR-00001642.jpg
In this court order dated July 23, 2020, Judge Alison J. Nathan denies Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to explicitly prohibit the Government and witness counsel from making extrajudicial statements. The Court deems a specific order unnecessary at this time, citing the expectation that all parties will comply with existing Local Criminal Rule 23.1 regarding professional responsibility. However, the Judge issues a stern warning that the Court will take appropriate action if these rules are violated to safeguard the defendant's right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001641.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 7 of 7) of a legal filing dated July 21, 2020, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is submitted by attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan, with copies sent to prosecutors at the SDNY (Moe, Rossmiller, Comey) and other defense counsel (Cohen, Everdell, Menninger).
DOJ-OGR-00001639.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, discusses the case of Ms. Maxwell, focusing on the aftermath of her July 14 detention hearing. It details comments made by David Boies, counsel for an accuser named Farmer, who heavily criticizes Maxwell's 'blame the victim' defense strategy as a 'dangerous tactic'. Boies recounts Farmer's testimony and another story about a 16-year-old named Annie being fraudulently lured by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to a ranch in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00001638.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, is page 4 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues that public statements made by FBI Special Agent William Sweeney and attorneys for witnesses (David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Bradley Edwards) are prejudicial against Ghislaine Maxwell and violate local court rules. The document quotes these individuals characterizing Maxwell as a villain, speculating on her cooperation, and defining her role as the primary facilitator for Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00001637.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that recent public statements by the government have been prejudicial to her right to a fair trial. It specifically cites a press conference held by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss on July 2, 2020, following Maxwell's arrest, quoting her statements from the New York Law Journal and the Washington Post as evidence of improper commentary on Maxwell's credibility and guilt.
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