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-00019519.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The Government argues against the defense counsel's request to publicly name victims who have self-identified in the media or public fora, contrasting this with the narrower 'Epstein protective order.' The Government asserts that victims of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein should be protected from having their identities broadcast by the defense, citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act and privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00019516.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 32) dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government argues against the defendant's request to publicly name individuals who have identified themselves as victims of Epstein or the defendant, citing the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and legal precedents (Paris, Corley, Kelly) regarding privacy and safety. The Government advocates for a protective order that requires the use of pseudonyms (e.g., 'Victim-1') in public filings while allowing the defense to use names in sealed filings and internal investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00019514.jpg
This document is the signature page for a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on July 27, 2020. It is ordered by Judge Alison J. Nathan and shows the agreement and consent of both the prosecution, led by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss, and the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, represented by her legal counsel. The specific nature of the order is not detailed on this page.
DOJ-OGR-00019503.jpg
This is the first page of a Proposed Protective Order filed on July 27, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. Judge Alison J. Nathan presides over the document, which outlines the Government's intent to produce discovery materials to the defense while limiting public disclosure to protect privacy, the ongoing investigation, and fair trial rights. The document establishes the legal framework for handling sensitive information pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.
DOJ-OGR-00019501.jpg
This is the final page (page 4) of a legal letter dated July 27, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Attorneys Christian R. Everdell and Mark S. Cohen of Cohen & Gresser LLP respectfully request that the Court enter a proposed protective order for their client, Ms. Maxwell. The document was filed on July 28, 2020, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
DOJ-OGR-00019500.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 28) dated July 27, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues for a specific provision in a protective order regarding victim/witness identities. Maxwell's defense contends that they should be permitted to reference alleged victims who have already voluntarily disclosed their identities in public records or media, arguing that the government's proposed restrictions are overly broad and hinder the defense's ability to investigate and advocate.
DOJ-OGR-00019499.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2020, is a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding a protective order in the criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. The government argues that restrictions on the use of discovery materials—prohibiting their use in civil proceedings or posting online—should apply not only to Ms. Maxwell and her defense but also to the government's potential witnesses and their counsel. This is requested due to concern that witnesses, who are involved in separate civil litigation with Maxwell, will use the discovery materials to support their civil cases or in public statements.
DOJ-OGR-00019498.jpg
This document is a letter dated July 27, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorneys (Cohen & Gresser LLP) to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense is requesting the entry of a protective order regarding discovery materials but outlines two remaining disputes with the government: 1) restrictions on government witnesses posting discovery materials to the internet, and 2) the defense's ability to publicly identify alleged victims who have already spoken on the public record.
DOJ-OGR-00019495.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 21, 2020, arguing that lawyers Boies and McCawley made prejudicial extrajudicial statements in ABC News interviews regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing quotes the lawyers describing Maxwell as a 'central figure' who 'worked hand-in-hand' with Epstein and suggesting other participants should be worried. The author requests a court order to prohibit further public comments that could damage Maxwell's right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019494.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, details arguments following Ghislaine Maxwell's detention hearing. It heavily features comments from David Boies, a lawyer for an accuser named Farmer, who criticizes Maxwell's potential 'blame the victim' defense strategy as counterproductive. Boies recounts his client's allegations, including a story about how Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein allegedly lured a 16-year-old girl named Annie to a ranch in New Mexico with fraudulent promises.
DOJ-OGR-00019493.jpg
This page from a legal filing dated July 21, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues that government officials (Ms. Strauss and FBI Agent William Sweeney) and private attorneys (David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, and Bradley Edwards) made prohibited, prejudicial public statements regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The document cites specific quotes comparing Maxwell to a 'snake' and 'villain,' as well as speculation about her potential cooperation with prosecutors to implicate other 'wealthy and influential people.' The filing asserts these comments violate Local Rule 23.1.
DOJ-OGR-00019492.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that her right to a fair trial has been prejudiced by public statements made by the prosecution. It specifically cites a press conference held by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss following Maxwell's July 2, 2020 arrest, quoting her statements to the New York Law Journal and the Washington Post as evidence of prejudicial commentary on Maxwell's credibility and guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00019491.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 21, 2020, filed in case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text focuses on Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a), outlining the duty of lawyers and government agents to avoid releasing non-public information that could prejudice a fair trial. It lists seven specific subject matters that are presumptively prejudicial if disseminated publicly, including the accused's prior record, confessions, test results, witness identities, plea possibilities, inadmissible evidence, and opinions on guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00019490.jpg
This document is a letter dated July 21, 2020, from attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York. On behalf of his client, Ghislaine Maxwell, Pagliuca requests a court order to prohibit the government and its agents from making extrajudicial statements about her case. The letter argues that such statements are prejudicial and violate Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, citing legal precedents to support the court's authority to issue such an order.
DOJ-OGR-00019470.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket report for Case 20-3061, detailing filings and orders between August 20, 2020, and September 8, 2020. It records various legal actions including sealed documents, letter motions regarding protective orders and redactions, and memorandum opinions denying defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's requests regarding discovery and confinement conditions. The document also notes the filing of a Notice of Appeal by Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019468.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket concerning the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically detailing a Memorandum Opinion & Order dated July 30, 2020. The order resolves disputes regarding a protective order, siding with the Government to restrict Ms. Maxwell from publicly referencing alleged victims not identified in the litigation and rejecting her request to restrict potential witnesses' use of discovery materials. The court emphasizes the need to balance privacy interests of victims and witnesses against the defendant's rights and public interest.
DOJ-OGR-00019467.jpg
This document is a docket report from Case 20-3061, detailing legal filings between July 21 and July 29, 2020, concerning the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries include motions from Maxwell's defense regarding extrajudicial statements and a protective order, responses from the USA, and orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan setting deadlines and ruling on the motions. The document chronicles a series of procedural exchanges between the defense and the prosecution in the days following Maxwell's initial filings.
DOJ-OGR-00019466.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from Case 20-3061, dated September 18, 2020, detailing proceedings related to defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in July 2020. Key events include attorney appearances, motions regarding Maxwell's detention, her arraignment where she pleaded not guilty, and Judge Alison J. Nathan's orders denying bail, remanding Maxwell, and setting a trial date for July 12, 2021. The docket also establishes deadlines for discovery and motions in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019465.jpg
This document is a court docket report from July 2020 regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061). It details the filing of a superseding indictment, notices of appearance by Maxwell's defense team (Cohen, Everdell, Menninger), and a Pro Hac Vice motion for attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca. It also includes orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan setting a briefing schedule and establishing protocols for a remote arraignment and bail hearing on July 14, 2020, including teleconference access numbers and COVID-19 safety measures for physical attendance.
DOJ-OGR-00019463.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet (Case 20-3061) detailing the initial legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell from June 29, 2020, to July 6, 2020. It records the unsealing of the indictment, her arrest in New Hampshire, the assignment of the case to Judge Alison J. Nathan, and the filing of a motion to detain. The document also includes a detailed order from Judge Nathan discussing the scheduling of an arraignment and bail hearing, citing COVID-19 protocols and the logistical constraints of video appearances from the Metropolitan Detention Center.
DOJ-OGR-00019460.jpg
This document is a page from the Criminal Docket for Case # 1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1, USA v. Maxwell, filed on June 29, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It lists Ghislaine Maxwell as the defendant (also noted as Sealed Defendant 1) and details her legal defense team, including attorneys Christian R. Everdell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, and Mark Stewart Cohen, along with their contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00019454.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court order filed on September 14, 2020, discussing 'The Interests of the Court' regarding a motion to stay a civil case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The court reasons that staying the civil case favors judicial economy because the parallel criminal case (presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan) may resolve common factual issues and involves strict protective orders that complicate civil discovery. The text references letters from the Government and Moskowitz regarding these discovery limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00019445.jpg
This document is a Memorandum and Order from the U.S. District Court (SDNY) dated September 14, 2020, in the civil case of Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke, et al. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman grants a motion filed by defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to stay the civil proceedings entirely pending the resolution of Maxwell's parallel criminal case (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The document notes that Maxwell is currently in custody at the MDC awaiting a criminal trial scheduled for July 12, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00019444.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 5) of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan orders that the Defendant may make unsealing applications to other courts if she wishes. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00019444.
DOJ-OGR-00019440.jpg
This document is a Memorandum Opinion and Order from Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on September 2, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses Maxwell's request to file certain discovery materials under seal, with the court deciding to adopt the Government's proposed redactions to protect an ongoing grand jury investigation. The court orders both parties to confer and submit their final proposed redactions by September 4, 2020.
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