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-00009653.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists specific questions directed at a juror regarding their history of sexual abuse, participation in support groups, interactions with a therapist during the trial, and statements made to the media (Instagram and The Independent) about their trauma and stress.
DOJ-OGR-00009652.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains a list of proposed questions to be asked of 'Juror 50' (identified as male) regarding whether his history of childhood sexual abuse, involvement in victim advocacy, or therapy history affected his impartiality during the trial. The text argues that direct questions about fairness yield self-serving answers and proposes specific inquiries into the impact of the abuse on his life and relationships.
DOJ-OGR-00009651.jpg
This legal document, dated March 1, 2022, addresses the potential bias of Juror 50 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details questions posed to Juror 50 regarding his recollection of a jury questionnaire about sexual abuse, particularly in light of an interview he gave to a Daily Mail reporter. The document argues that Juror 50's childhood sexual abuse, similar to that of witnesses, is sufficient grounds for a 'for cause' challenge, citing legal precedent on implied and inferable bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009650.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript dated March 1, 2022, detailing the questioning of an individual about their answers on a jury questionnaire. The questioning focuses on their responses regarding impartiality (Question 41) and personal history with sexual abuse (Question 48), and highlights inconsistencies between their questionnaire answers and statements made in subsequent interviews with reporters from Reuters and the Daily Mail.
DOJ-OGR-00009649.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Document 636) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated March 1, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It contains a transcript of questions posed to an individual (likely a juror) regarding their attention to detail when filling out a specific questionnaire, specifically referencing Questions 34, 37, and 41. The questioning focuses on establishing that the individual did not 'fly through' the questions but took time to provide written responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009648.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains a list of proposed questions (numbers 19 and 20) addressed to an individual (likely a juror) regarding their answers on a jury questionnaire. Specifically, it probes whether the individual read, understood, and truthfully answered 'Question 25' regarding being a victim of a crime, noting that the individual answered 'No'.
DOJ-OGR-00009647.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript dated March 1, 2022, for a case presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It contains a series of questions directed at an individual, likely a potential juror, to verify their understanding and truthfulness in answering a questionnaire. The questioning specifically explores why the individual answered 'Yes' to questions 10-14 but 'No' to questions 15-16, establishing that they recognized the difference in the questions and answered accordingly.
DOJ-OGR-00009646.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated March 1, 2022, likely a deposition or questionnaire for a potential juror in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It questions the individual about their process of completing a questionnaire under penalty of perjury and their prior communications with various media outlets, including The Independent, Daily Mail, and Reuters, regarding their involvement as a juror. The document also references a section of the questionnaire concerning "Basic Legal Principles and Media Restrictions" relevant to jury service.
DOJ-OGR-00009644.jpg
This legal document, dated March 1, 2022, is a page from a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It appears to be a transcript of questions directed at a potential juror regarding their knowledge of the case, which they gained from a jury questionnaire. The questionnaire summarized charges that 'the Defendant' conspired with and aided Jeffrey Epstein in sex trafficking of minors from 1994 through 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00009643.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing submitted to Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 1, 2022, by the defense in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It lists specific proposed questions for 'Juror 50' regarding his prior knowledge of the case, his exposure to media reports about Epstein and Maxwell, and how his own history as a victim of childhood sexual abuse may have influenced his state of mind and sympathy for the victims during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009642.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines proposed questions for a hearing regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically probing why the juror answered 'No' to questionnaire questions 48 and 25 regarding past sexual abuse and crime victimization, despite admitting to being sexually abused as a child. The document seeks to establish the credibility of the juror's explanations for these discrepancies.
DOJ-OGR-00009641.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 636) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated March 1, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It lists a series of questions (17-31) aimed at a respondent, focusing on grooming tactics (gifts, normalizing sexual topics), the timeline of reporting abuse, and the lasting traumatic impact of the events.
DOJ-OGR-00009640.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated March 1, 2022, and addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. It contains a list of questions (numbered 5 through 16) designed to gather information from an abuse victim. The questions probe the identity of the abuser, their relationship to the victim, and the specific circumstances under which the abuse occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00009639.jpg
This document is a legal filing dated March 1, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell case, given the context of juror misconduct allegations). It outlines proposed questions the defense wants the Court to ask 'Juror 50' to determine if the juror lied on their questionnaire regarding a history of sexual abuse. The filing cites media reports from The Independent and the Daily Mail where the juror allegedly admitted to being a victim of childhood sexual abuse, contradicting their jury questionnaire answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009633.jpg
This is a court order filed on March 7, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Judge Alison J. Nathan orders a redacted individual (referred to as 'he') to give testimony pursuant to immunity statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003). The order ensures that the compelled testimony cannot be used against the witness in criminal cases, acting as a compulsion order overcoming a Fifth Amendment privilege claim.
DOJ-OGR-00009623.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter filed on March 2, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense attorneys request that Maxwell's lawyers be present for an upcoming proceeding and ask for a continuance until May. The letter is signed by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and lists co-counsel Laura A. Menninger, Christian R. Everdell, and Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00009621.jpg
This document is a letter dated March 2, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, on behalf of her client Ghislaine Maxwell, to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Sternheim requests a proffer from the counsel for 'Juror 50' to explain why the juror is asserting their Fifth Amendment right, especially since the juror publicly claimed to have answered all questions honestly. In a handwritten note dated March 3, 2022, Judge Nathan denied the request, stating no grounds were offered for it.
DOJ-OGR-00009618.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 2, 2022, is a request from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The attorneys, led by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, ask the Court to postpone an important proceeding until a convenient date in May. The reason for the request is to ensure that Ms. Maxwell's lawyers can be present for the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009617.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 2, 2022, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Pagliuca, on behalf of his client Ghislaine Maxwell, requests an adjournment of a hearing on a Motion for New Trial, originally scheduled for March 8. The reason for the request is the unavailability of Maxwell's legal counsel, including Pagliuca, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Sternheim, due to their mandatory participation in other lengthy trials in Colorado and New York.
DOJ-OGR-00009616.jpg
A legal letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, to Judge Alison Nathan regarding 'Juror 50.' The letter notes that Juror 50 intends to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, despite publicly claiming honesty, and that the government is seeking immunity for the juror. Maxwell's defense requests an explanation (proffer) for the Fifth Amendment assertion and the government's willingness to grant immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00009614.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 1, 2022, from attorney Todd A. Spodek of Spodek Law Group to District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter concerns the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. Spodek informs the court that his client, identified only as Juror 50, will invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at a court-ordered hearing scheduled for March 8, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009562.jpg
This is the final signature page (page 21) of a court document (Document 620) filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The document was signed by U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan on February 24, 2022, in New York, and filed the following day. The page includes a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00009562).
DOJ-OGR-00009542.jpg
This document 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 misconduct by 'Juror 50'. However, the Court agrees to a limited evidentiary hearing to determine if Juror 50 provided a materially false answer on a jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009541.jpg
This document is a letter dated February 24, 2022, from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter proposes limited redactions to a court Opinion and Order in response to a prior court order. Appended to the letter is a handwritten order from Judge Nathan, dated February 25, 2022, approving the proposed redactions to ensure the integrity of a forthcoming hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009540.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated February 24, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter serves as a response to a court order issued the same day, proposing that the defense will make limited redactions to an attached Opinion and Order that was filed under a temporary seal.
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