Trove
Sign In Sign Up

ALISON J. NATHAN

Person
Mentions
2353
Relationships
101
Events
478
Documents
1160
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
101 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Judge defendant
54 Very Strong
90
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Defendant judge
24 Very Strong
33
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Judicial
21 Very Strong
66
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Defendant judge
19 Very Strong
19
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Legal representative
12 Very Strong
40
View
organization The government
Professional
10 Very Strong
6
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Professional
10 Very Strong
46
View
person the defendant
Judicial
10 Very Strong
6
View
person Christian R. Everdell
Professional
10 Very Strong
7
View
person Bobbi C. Sternheim
Professional
10 Very Strong
11
View
person defendant
Judicial
9 Strong
5
View
person Paula Speer
Professional
8 Strong
4
View
person AUDREY STRAUSS
Professional
8 Strong
4
View
organization U.S. government
Legal representative
8 Strong
4
View
person MAURENE COMEY
Prosecutor judge
7
3
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Judicial authority
7
3
View
person MAXWELL
Judicial
7
2
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Judicial assignment
7
3
View
person Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Legal representative
7
3
View
person United States Government
Professional
7
3
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Judge defendant
7
3
View
person the defendant
Judge defendant
6
2
View
person Juror 50
None
6
2
View
organization The government
Legal representative
6
2
View
person defendant
Professional
6
1
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
2020-07-30 Court order issuance Judge Alison J. Nathan signed and issued a court order. New York, New York View
2020-07-30 N/A Memorandum Opinion & Order filed resolving disputes over the protective order. New York, New York View
2020-07-30 N/A Memorandum Opinion & Order Issued Court View
2020-07-30 N/A Filing of Protective Order New York, New York View
2020-07-30 N/A Protective Order Signed Court View
2020-07-30 Legal filing A Protective Order was electronically filed in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine ... UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... View
2020-07-30 N/A Protective Order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan prohibiting use of criminal discovery in civil ... SDNY View
2020-07-30 N/A Filing of Protective Order in case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell Southern District of New York View
2020-07-29 Legal filing The defense is arguing against the government's proposed protective order concerning discovery ma... N/A View
2020-07-28 Legal filing The Government filed a document opposing the defendant's motion concerning a protective order. Southern District of New York View
2020-07-28 Filing Document 33-1 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. N/A View
2020-07-28 Legal filing The U.S. Attorney's office filed a document arguing against a defendant's motion and in favor of ... Southern District of New York View
2020-07-28 Legal filing Filing of Document 33 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. N/A View
2020-07-27 N/A Filing of Document 28 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Court (S.D.N.Y.) View
2020-07-27 Court filing The letter from Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Nathan was filed with the court. United States District Cour... View
2020-07-27 N/A Filing of Document 29 (Proposed Protective Order) Southern District of New York View
2020-07-27 Legal filing A court document was filed and ordered, showing agreement between the U.S. Attorney's office and ... New York, New York View
2020-07-27 Legal filing Submission of a letter requesting the court to enter a proposed protective order for Ms. Maxwell. Court associated with Case ... View
2020-07-23 N/A Judge Nathan issues order denying Defense motion regarding extrajudicial statements New York, New York View
2020-07-23 N/A Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an order denying the Defendant's motion to prohibit extrajudicial s... New York, New York View
2020-07-23 N/A Judge Alison J. Nathan issues an order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to prohibit extrajudici... Southern District of New York View
2020-07-21 Legal filing Document 27 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. N/A View
2020-07-21 Court order issuance Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an order stating that unsolicited correspondence from non-parties r... UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... View
2020-07-21 N/A Filing of Document 27 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Southern District of New York View
2020-07-21 Legal filing Filing of a letter requesting an order to prohibit extrajudicial statements. United States District Cour... View

DOJ-OGR-00019684.jpg

This is page 2 of a court order from an appellate court dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying her motion to consolidate. The document outlines the legal basis for the dismissal, citing the "final judgment rule" in criminal cases and the strict conditions required for collateral order appeals.

Legal court order (appellate)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019678.jpg

This document is page 2 of an appellate court order dated October 19, 2020, dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The court outlines the 'final judgment rule,' explaining that appeals generally cannot occur until after a final conviction and sentencing, and determines Maxwell's request does not meet the strict criteria for an exception (collateral order). The document cites numerous legal precedents regarding jurisdiction and finality in criminal cases.

Legal order / appellate court decision
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017350.jpg

This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 29, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. It identifies the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, as well as the legal counsel appearing for both the prosecution and the defense. The case number is 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017334.jpg

This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 28, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. It lists the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and details the legal appearances for both the prosecution (US Attorney's Office) and the defense (Haddon Morgan and Foreman, Cohen & Gresser). It also notes the presence of FBI and NYPD representatives in the courtroom.

Court transcript (cover page)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017305.jpg

This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The trial took place on December 27, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, with the Honorable Alison J. Nathan presiding as District Judge. The document lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present at the proceeding.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017279.jpg

This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 21, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It identifies the case number, the presiding judge (Hon. Alison J. Nathan), and lists the appearances of the legal counsel for both the prosecution (United States of America) and the defense, as well as other individuals present from the FBI and NYPD.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010753.jpg

This document is a letter dated June 27, 2022, from attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. McCawley explains that her client, victim Virginia Giuffre, cannot physically attend a court hearing due to a medical issue and requests permission to read Giuffre's statement on her behalf. A handwritten note on the document, signed by Judge Nathan, grants this request, ordering that counsel will be permitted to read a shortened version of the statement.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010752.jpg

This is the final page of a court order issued by United States Circuit Judge Alison J. Nathan. It instructs counsel to ensure shortened statements conform to requirements and orders the Government to provide copies of the order to counsel for eight specific individuals.

Court order (page 2)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010750.jpg

This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan dated June 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses a letter from the defendant regarding her access to legal materials needed for sentencing preparation at the MDC. The Court confirms with the MDC Warden that Maxwell has been given access to documents and a writing implement and orders the Government to follow up with the Warden and report back to the Court by 2:00 p.m. the following day.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010749.jpg

This is a court order issued on June 26, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses a motion filed by the attorney for an individual named 'Kate', which was referenced in a letter from the Defendant but had not been received by the Court. The judge orders the Government to officially docket this motion by midnight on the same day.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010748.jpg

A court order from the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on June 25, 2022. The order requires the parties to submit their positions regarding a motion filed by Ms. Ransome and Ms. Stein (Dkt. No. 675) by 10:00 a.m. the following day.

Court order
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010747.jpg

This is a court order dated June 24, 2022, from Judge Alison J. Nathan in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order denies the Defendant's request to redact seven written witness statements, citing the presumption of public access and the fact that the witnesses themselves did not seek to file their statements under seal. The Court directs the Government to docket the statements without redactions and affirms that witnesses Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre may present in-person statements at the future sentencing hearing.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010744.jpg

This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. The order addresses the rights of victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to be heard at sentencing. The court grants the request for three individuals, Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre, to make oral statements at the sentencing, noting that the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, does not object to their inclusion.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010736.jpg

This legal document is a letter dated June 26, 2022, from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter serves as a court filing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. In it, the government submits a motion filed by the attorney for an individual named 'Kate', which was attached to her victim impact statement, in response to a court order issued that same day.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010729.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 June 26, 2022, regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution states that, in response to a court order, they have confirmed with the Metropolitan Detention Center's Warden and Chief Psychologist that the defendant has full access to her legal documents and counsel. Consequently, the government argues there is no reason to postpone her sentencing.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010727.jpg

This document is a letter filed on June 26, 2022, by the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government is responding to a court order concerning an application by Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein to speak at Maxwell's sentencing. The letter references a previous order where the Court declined to allow individuals not proven at trial to be directly harmed to speak at the hearing, instead permitting them to submit written statements.

Legal correspondence / court filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010726.jpg

This is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated June 25, 2022, concerning her client, Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim reports that the MDC has unjustifiably placed Maxwell on suicide watch, depriving her of legal materials and sleep, which prevents her from preparing for her upcoming sentencing. Sternheim asserts that both she and a psychologist have confirmed Maxwell is not suicidal and states her intent to formally request a postponement if the conditions are not changed.

Letter
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010725.jpg

This legal letter, dated June 25, 2022, is from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim opposes a motion filed on behalf of Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein, who seek to provide oral victim impact statements at Maxwell's sentencing. The letter argues that the motion should be denied because neither Ransome nor Stein qualify as statutory crime victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010674.jpg

This document is a letter filed on June 24, 2022, from attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It serves to submit a written victim impact statement from Teresa Helm, who identifies herself as a victim trafficked by Maxwell in 2002 at the age of 22. Helm's statement directly addresses Maxwell, describing the grooming process, the psychological trauma endured, and the devastating long-term effects on her self-worth and life trajectory.

Legal correspondence / victim impact statement submission
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010672.jpg

This document is a letter from Sigrid S. McCawley, counsel for Maria Farmer, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, providing a victim impact statement for Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing. Maria Farmer details how Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein trafficked, assaulted, and threatened her in 1996 on the Wexner estate, leading to the destruction of her career, health issues, and profound personal suffering. Due to a medical issue, Maria Farmer requests her statement be read into the record by her attorney.

Legal correspondence/victim impact statement
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010664.jpg

This document is a letter from Sigrid S. McCawley, counsel for Annie Farmer, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated June 22, 2022. It provides Annie Farmer's victim impact statement regarding the crimes committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and requests permission for Ms. Farmer to make an oral statement at Maxwell's sentencing. The statement details the profound and ongoing psychological and emotional impact of the abuse on Annie Farmer.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010660.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 June 24, 2022, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter responds to a court order about the defendant's objections to victim statements, identifying six victims by their first names (Jane, Annie, Kate, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa). It also notes that two of the victims, Kate and Annie, plan to attend the upcoming sentencing hearing.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010649.jpg

A letter dated June 22, 2022, from attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. McCawley, representing Teresa Helm, asserts that Helm was trafficked by Maxwell in 2002 and requests permission for Helm to make an oral victim impact statement at the upcoming sentencing. The majority of the detailed statement is redacted.

Legal correspondence / victim impact statement request
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010592.jpg

This document is a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, filed on June 24, 2022. In the letter, Maxwell formally objects to Sarah Ransome, Maria Farmer, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant being legally characterized as 'victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) for the purpose of sentencing. The defense argues these individuals do not meet the statutory requirements, specifically regarding their age at the time of alleged abuse, the timing relative to the indictment, and proximate harm resulting from the specific federal offenses of conviction.

Legal correspondence / court filing (submission under seal)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010527.jpg

This document is page 2 of a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on June 21, 2022. It establishes deadlines for filing objections and non-objected statements on June 24, 2022. Crucially, it orders the Government to confirm by noon on June 22, 2022, that victims have been notified of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).

Court order / legal filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
4
As Recipient
1
Total
5

Response Deadline

From: ALISON J. NATHAN
To: the government

Order to respond to Defendant's letter by 5:00 p.m. on Oct 15, 2021.

Order
2021-10-15
Communication Source

Order on Redactions

From: ALISON J. NATHAN
To: Parties

Judge adopts proposed redactions for specific motions.

Order
2021-02-04
Communication Source

Order referenced as Dkt. No. 89

From: ALISON J. NATHAN
To: Parties in the case

A previous court order from December 7, 2020, which the Defendant's filing was in accordance with.

Court order
2020-12-07
Communication Source

Endorsement on Letter Motion

From: ALISON J. NATHAN
To: Defendant (Maxwell)

The Court sees no basis for sealing this letter. Defendant must justify sealing by Dec 2, 2020, or file publicly.

Court order
2020-11-25
Communication Source

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

From: Defense counsel (implied)
To: ALISON J. NATHAN

Legal arguments regarding 'The Material' and subpoena service issues.

Letter
2020-08-17
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search