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
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-00008436.jpg

This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 19, 2021, concerning the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government identifies a significant ambiguity in Jury Instruction No. 19, where the pronoun "she" could be interpreted as referring to either the defendant or the victim. To resolve this, the Government proposes that the court replace "she" with "the individual" to ensure clarity for the jury.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008435.jpg

This document is the signature page (page 5 of 5) of a legal filing dated December 15, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. It lists the contact information and signatures of Maxwell's defense attorneys: Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, Christian R. Everdell, and Bobbi C. Sternheim.

Legal filing (signature page)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008434.jpg

This document is a legal letter filed on December 18, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests permission for a witness, Mr. Hamilton, to testify remotely from London via WebEx because he has tested positive for COVID-19 and cannot travel. The defense argues that precluding his testimony would violate Maxwell's constitutional rights to present a defense and confront accusers, specifically mentioning the need to expose the bias of an accuser named Kate.

Legal correspondence / court filing (defense letter motion)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg

This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 15, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It presents defense arguments supporting the admissibility of testimony from a witness named Mr. Hamilton regarding statements made by 'Kate,' arguing that this evidence proves bias and is not a collateral matter. The text cites various legal precedents to refute the government's objections.

Court filing (letter/motion reply)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008431.jpg

This legal document is a letter dated December 15, 2021, from defense attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is a response to the government's motion to prevent a witness, Alexander Hamilton, from testifying about four specific topics related to an individual named 'Kate'. The defense argues that providing Hamilton's declaration to the government under Rule 26.2 does not obligate them to introduce all of its contents as evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008428.jpg

A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 18, 2021, regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The Government is writing to oppose the addition of a specific jury instruction (Sand instruction 7-12) concerning the impeachment of witnesses by prior felony convictions, arguing it is not necessary in this context. The letter mentions a witness named 'Carolyn' whose prior convictions were elicited.

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

DOJ-OGR-00008427.jpg

This document is the third and final page of a legal filing (Document 553) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated December 15, 2021, and filed on December 17, 2021. It serves as the signature page for a letter or motion addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan from the legal team representing Ghislaine Maxwell, including attorneys Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, Christian R. Everdell, and Bobbi C. Sternheim. The document also indicates that a copy was sent via email to the counsel of record.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008426.jpg

This legal document, dated December 15, 2021, is an argument from Ms. Maxwell's counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. Counsel argues that because Jane denied the substance of a prior statement in court, they should be allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, citing legal precedent. The document concludes by noting that due to time constraints, counsel was unable to meet a 10:15 p.m. deadline to list all such disputed statements.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008425.jpg

This is a legal letter dated December 16, 2021, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter presents legal arguments concerning the impeachment of witnesses using inconsistent statements and '3500 material' (Jencks Act disclosures), citing specific case law to support the defense's procedural approach.

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

DOJ-OGR-00008424.jpg

This is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on December 16, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan, denies the Government's motion to preclude remaining witnesses from testifying.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008423.jpg

This is the second and final page of a legal document (Document 551) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 16, 2021. The document was signed in New York, New York by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. A Department of Justice Bates number (DOJ-OGR-00008423) is present at the bottom of the page.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008422.jpg

This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 16, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge orders the parties to submit letters by 10:15 p.m. that same day citing legal authority regarding the admission of prior inconsistent statements and the application of Rule 613(b). The parties are also ordered to docket these letters by the following morning.

Court order
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008419.jpg

This is a letter from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter argues that under Rule 613(b), the court has discretion to require that an alleged inconsistent statement be shown to a witness before extrinsic evidence is admitted, citing United States v. Marks.

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

DOJ-OGR-00008393.jpg

This is a letter filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 17, 2021, regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government is writing to limit the scope of cross-examination by the defense of law enforcement agents, specifically stating they will object to questions regarding the agents' 'failure to utilize some particular technique,' citing a prior ruling from November 1, 2021.

Legal filing / letter
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008392.jpg

This is the final page of a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 15, 2021. United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan affirms the court's duty to protect witnesses from harassing or inappropriate cross-examination, citing the legal precedent from *Smith v. Illinois*. The order was signed and dated in New York, New York.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008385.jpg

A legal letter from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter argues that the government used suggestive questioning techniques on accusers, specifically citing an instance where a witness named 'Jane' changed her testimony regarding a trip to New York and seeing 'The Lion King' after pressure from AUSA Rossmiller. The defense uses this to justify the necessity of expert testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding memory and suggestive questioning.

Legal correspondence / defense letter
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008383.jpg

This document is a letter from the U.S. Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 15, 2021, regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government is requesting permission to redact portions of the defendant's motion seeking testimony from Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman to protect the privacy of a Minor Victim.

Legal correspondence / letter motion
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008374.jpg

This legal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 14, 2021, opposes defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's request to call three attorneys for victims (Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman) to testify. The Government argues that their testimony about privileged client conversations or discussions with the Government would be irrelevant and an improper attempt to circumvent privilege, as the victims themselves have already testified.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008372.jpg

This document is the final page of a legal filing (Document 544) from December 13, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell assert her constitutional right to call Mr. Scarola, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Glassman as witnesses. The page includes the contact information for her legal counsel from three different law firms.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008371.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that certain communications related to a claimant named 'Jane' are not protected by attorney-client privilege. The argument is based on her representative, Mr. Glassman, sharing her statements and settlement demands with third parties, including the government, the EVCP, and Ms. Maxwell's counsel. The document details specific financial demands, such as a $25 million demand and a $5 million offer, to demonstrate that these communications were not confidential.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008370.jpg

This legal document, dated December 13, 2021, argues that testimony from attorney Robert Glassman is not protected by attorney-client privilege. It focuses on a discrepancy in a witness's ('Jane') memory, where she claimed Mr. Epstein took her to see 'The Lion King' on Broadway in 1994, three years before it premiered. The document details communications between AUSA Rossmiller and Mr. Glassman where the government pointed out the error, but Jane insisted her story was correct.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008369.jpg

This legal document, filed on December 14, 2021, argues for the questioning of attorney Brad Edwards regarding a U-Visa application he submitted for his client, Kate. The filing asserts that Kate denied seeking a U-Visa during cross-examination, making her attorney's actions relevant to her motive and bias as a witness. The document contends that this action is not protected by attorney-client privilege, or if it was, the privilege was waived.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008368.jpg

This legal document, part of a court case and addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues that any potential attorney-client privilege regarding statements about a person named Carolyn was waived. The argument posits that because Mr. Scarola disclosed this information to the government, the confidentiality required for privilege was broken. The document cites multiple legal precedents to support the claim that this voluntary disclosure to a third party (the government) results in the forfeiture of the privilege, which is relevant for assessing Carolyn's credibility as she testifies against Ms. Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008366.jpg

This legal document, dated December 13, 2021, chronicles the government's efforts throughout 2020 to contact and meet with an individual named Carolyn. The communications were primarily facilitated by an intermediary, Mr. Scarola, who was present at meetings on July 17 and August 11, 2020. The document details the timeline of contact attempts, the involvement of another associate named Mike Danchuck, and a specific statement Mr. Scarola made to the government during one of the meetings.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008365.jpg

This legal document, dated December 13, 2021, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues that the Court should permit the testimony of three witnesses—Mr. Scarola, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Glassman—to establish motive and bias of Maxwell's accusers, after the government refused to stipulate. The document details the proposed testimony of attorney Jack Scarola, including his prior representation of an accuser named 'Carolyn' in a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein and his communications with the government.

Legal document
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