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-00001809.jpg
This document is Page 5 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Government is failing to meet discovery obligations, specifically regarding 28 boxes of material from Florida and files from Georgia, and that the proposed timeline impairs Maxwell's ability to prepare for the July 2021 trial. The text highlights concerns about witness statements, the age of the claims (26 years), and the difficulty of securing out-of-country testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00001801.jpg
This is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*. The Government requests to delay the disclosure of certain photographs and documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's victims until eight weeks before trial to protect an ongoing investigation. The Government argues these materials concern abuse occurring after the indictment period (post-1997) and are not exculpatory regarding the charges against Maxwell for the 1994-1997 period.
DOJ-OGR-00001797.jpg
This legal document, dated October 14, 2020, is a filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues that the prosecution must disclose evidence from victims abused by Epstein after 1997, claiming this evidence is exculpatory under the Brady rule because it contradicts the government's theory that Maxwell was Epstein's sole "madam" and principal facilitator. The filing also details how the perjury charges against Maxwell originated from her depositions in a 2015 defamation lawsuit brought by a victim identified as "Accuser-1."
DOJ-OGR-00001792.jpg
This document is a status update to Judge Alison Nathan regarding the Government's discovery process in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (implied by case number/context). It details the Prosecution Team's acquisition of investigative files from the Palm Beach State Attorney (PBSA), the FBI Florida Office (24 boxes), and the USAO-SDFL (28 boxes) related to the 2006-2010 Epstein investigations. It also notes that the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has gathered internal emails regarding the handling of the prior Florida investigation, including those of a primary prosecutor referred to as 'Attorney-1'.
DOJ-OGR-00001791.jpg
This document is a filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (US v. Maxwell) detailing the status of obtaining files from the original Florida investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines that the Government has the full FBI Florida Office file, which includes PBPD materials, and has recently obtained 60 pages from the PBPD directly, identifying five pages for discovery production. It also notes that the Palm Beach State's Attorney's Office (PBSA) handled the state prosecution where Epstein pled guilty to procuring an underage girl, and the Government is addressing the collection of files from that office.
DOJ-OGR-00001784.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated October 6, 2020, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The prosecution requests permission to delay the disclosure of sensitive evidence—photographs and documents of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse victims—to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team until eight weeks before trial. The government argues this is necessary to protect an ongoing investigation and sensitive victim information, while noting the defense objects to this request.
DOJ-OGR-00001764.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 24, 2020, filed in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues against the government's characterization of Maxwell's actions as 'cherry-picking' and challenges the government's issuance of subpoenas as not being 'standard practice,' citing Second Circuit case law (Martindell) regarding protective orders and civil discovery. Large portions of the document are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00001682.jpg
This document is the final page of a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 28, 2020. The order, signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan in New York, concludes by stating that the Defense Counsel may apply to the Court for modifications.
DOJ-OGR-00021880.jpg
This legal document is a court filing dated December 2, 2024, concerning the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction. It identifies the legal counsel for both the appellant, Maxwell, and the appellee, the United States, and states that Maxwell is appealing her June 29, 2022, conviction and sentence from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for charges including conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00021879.jpg
This document is Page 2 of an appellate court decision filed on December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rejected Maxwell's five arguments on appeal, including her claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in Florida protected her from prosecution in New York. The court affirmed the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021850.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, detailing the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction. Written by Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes, it lists the legal counsel for both sides and summarizes Maxwell's June 29, 2022, conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy, including her sentencing of concurrent prison terms totaling 240 months (20 years).
DOJ-OGR-00021849.jpg
This page is from an appellate court decision affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines her sentence (concurrent terms totaling 240 months) for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. The court rejects her five grounds for appeal, which included arguments about Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations, and jury impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00021797.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It lists the legal counsel for both the United States (Appellee) and Ghislaine Maxwell (Appellant) and begins the written opinion by Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes regarding Maxwell's appeal of her 2022 conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy involving minors. The text details her conviction statutes and sentences of 60, 120, and 240 months imprisonment.
DOJ-OGR-00021796.jpg
This document is page 2 of an appellate court opinion affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the charges she was convicted of (sex trafficking, conspiracy), her sentence (concurrent terms up to 240 months), and rejects five specific arguments raised on appeal, including the applicability of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and claims of jury bias. The court concludes by affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022 judgment.
DOJ-OGR-00021661.jpg
This document is the first page of a legal brief filed by the United States of America in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The brief is in response to an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted on June 29, 2022, in the Southern District of New York after a jury trial presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document outlines the charges from the March 29, 2021 superseding indictment, beginning with conspiracy to entice minors to travel for illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00021546.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The hearing took place on June 28, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present at the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00021529.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's motion for an immediate new trial based on the current record but determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding 'Juror 50.' The document discusses the legal standards (McDonough standard, Rule 606) for post-verdict inquiries into juror misconduct, specifically addressing allegations that Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021525.jpg
This is an Opinion & Order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan denies the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record, which alleged that a juror (Juror 50) lied during jury selection. However, the Court agrees to a limited evidentiary hearing to determine if Juror 50 provided a materially false answer on the questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00021165.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing from April 26, 2023, regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal (Case 22-1426). It summarizes the procedural history, noting her conviction on June 29, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan. Paragraph 4 details the eight counts of the Superseding Indictment filed in March 2021, which include conspiracy, enticement of minors, sex trafficking of minors, and perjury.
DOJ-OGR-00021163.jpg
This document is a Motion Information Statement filed on April 26, 2023, by the U.S. government in the appeal of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Docket No. 22-1426). The government requests permission to file an oversized brief of up to 20,000 words and a 30-day extension of time to file it, proposing a new deadline of June 29, 2023. This would consequently extend the deadline for Ghislaine Maxwell's reply brief to July 27, 2023. The motion is noted as being unopposed by Maxwell's counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00019614.jpg
This document is a legal brief filed by the United States of America in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Docket No. 20-3061). The brief's preliminary statement outlines that Maxwell is appealing a September 2, 2020 order from the Southern District of New York which denied her motion to modify a protective order. It also summarizes the superseding indictment filed on July 8, 2020, which charges Maxwell with assisting Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual exploitation of minors between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00019579.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated August 24, 2020, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The letter argues that his client, Ms. Maxwell, has demonstrated good cause to present a discrete set of sealed materials to judicial officers, countering that any argument of compromising grand jury secrecy is 'absurd'. Pagliuca asserts that the government has failed to provide a valid reason for withholding this information from other judicial officers.
DOJ-OGR-00019578.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on August 24, 2020. The text argues that Protective Orders may be modified as circumstances change and refutes the Government's suggestion that Ms. Maxwell waived her right to seek modification. It cites various legal precedents (Smith Kline Beecham Corp., United States v. Gurney, etc.) to support the court's power to modify orders and unseal records.
DOJ-OGR-00019577.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing dated August 24, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Maxwell's defense argues for the ability to provide sealed materials to 'two arbiters' (likely judges in other civil cases) without violating a Protective Order, countering the government's claim that this would harm an ongoing criminal investigation. The document also contains a footnote objecting to the government providing ex parte information about an ongoing grand jury investigation to the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00019576.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is page 3 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues against the U.S. Government's position, refuting the claim that materials Ms. Maxwell seeks to file under seal are 'Confidential' or would compromise a 'secret' investigation. The filing cites legal precedent and states that the subpoena recipient is already aware of the information in question.
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