Relationship Details

An internal government email dated December 2, 2020, addressed to 'Chiefs' submitting a draft legal letter for review. The draft responds to Ghislaine Maxwell's requests for redactions and an 'in camera' proceeding, following an order from Judge Nathan. The email includes several attachments relating to sealing motions and bail motions.

This document is an email chain from November 2020 between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and recipients likely within the BOP/MDC (Nicole McFarland, Sophia Papapetru). The discussion concerns a letter to Judge Nathan regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement conditions. Specific complaints raised include a staff member potentially exposed to COVID-19 continuing to work, a staff member taking unauthorized photos of Maxwell in her cell, and Maxwell's deteriorating mental health due to sleep deprivation and constant surveillance.

This document consists of an internal email chain within the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) dated June 15-16, 2021, discussing the upcoming suppression hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. The correspondence addresses legal strategy, including Maxwell's filing of 12 separate memos of law to evade page limits, and clarifies the identity of Stan Pottinger as a lawyer from Boies Schiller who represented a plaintiff in a related civil action. The emails also reference previous proceedings before Judge Sweet and Judge McMahon.

This document is page 10 of a legal filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 12, 2021. It details Judge Nathan's findings that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her extraordinary financial resources, multiple foreign citizenships, and lack of employment. The text notes that despite letters of support and offers to waive extradition rights, the court found the risk of flight fundamentally unchanged and the case against her strong.

This document is an internal email dated October 29, 2020, likely between prosecutors or government officials regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The sender attaches a draft reply to a letter from Maxwell's defense team concerning discovery files from other agencies, along with copies of previous correspondence from October 7th and October 23rd.

This document is an email chain from April 2021 between attorneys at the Southern District of New York (USANYS) discussing a recent opinion by Judge Nathan in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The team arranges a weekend conference call to discuss the Judge's order requiring the government to confirm its position on evidence supporting Maxwell's interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). One email also references a previous letter regarding discovery materials obtained from the Southern District of Florida (SDFL).

This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (likely the Second Circuit appeal regarding Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines Maxwell's argument that the civil appeal court should reverse Judge Preska's order to unseal her depositions. She argues that unsealing the documents now would prejudice her ability to challenge the government's conduct (specifically an alleged violation of 'Martindell' by obtaining civil depositions for criminal use) before Judge Nathan in her pending criminal case.

This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. It argues that Judge Nathan erred by not modifying a protective order, preventing Ghislaine Maxwell from sharing sealed material with Judge Preska, which the defense claims is necessary to protect Maxwell's rights under the *Martindell* precedent. The document highlights the complexity of the litigation, noting that six sets of judicial officers are handling interrelated questions regarding Maxwell.

This document details the denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's second bail application, originally submitted on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan ruled that Maxwell posed a significant flight risk due to her substantial resources, foreign ties (including citizenship in a non-extradition country), and lack of candor regarding her finances. The judge also noted the strength of the Government's case and the seriousness of the charges.

This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed by the Government on April 12, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-770). The text argues against Maxwell's appeal regarding her bail denial, asserting that she poses a flight risk due to foreign ties and wealth, and defending the lower court's use of 'proffers' (evidence summaries) rather than full evidentiary hearings for bail determinations, citing Second Circuit precedents.

This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on June 29, 2023. It argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's interpretation of the statute of limitations under the PROTECT Act. The text asserts that Congress rejected a specific retroactivity clause not to limit the Act's scope entirely, but to avoid unconstitutional results (reviving time-barred crimes), while still intending to cover past conduct where the statute of limitations had not yet expired.

This document is a page from a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order is moot. The text details that Judge Nathan has already authorized Maxwell to inform Judge Preska (under seal) about specific facts learned during criminal discovery regarding government subpoenas, which Maxwell claims is necessary to argue for a stay on unsealing deposition materials. It also notes that Maxwell's criminal charges include allegations of perjury in civil cases.

This document is page 21 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The Government argues that the Court should deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to consolidate two separate appeals (one civil regarding unsealing, one criminal regarding a protective order). The text asserts that Maxwell's strategy is procedurally improper and attempts to litigate the Government's evidence-gathering methods in the wrong forum.

This page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061, dated Sept 28, 2020) outlines a dispute over appellate jurisdiction. Ms. Maxwell is requesting permission to share facts with another judge under seal. The document argues against the government's position that the court lacks jurisdiction, asserting that Judge Nathan's previous order meets the requirements of the 'collateral order doctrine' despite the government's strict interpretation.