DOJ-OGR-00019416.jpg
637 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / appellate brief
File Size:
637 KB
Summary
This page from a legal brief (filed Sept 24, 2020) argues against the government's stance that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The text discusses the 'collateral order doctrine' in criminal cases, citing precedents like Midland Asphalt Corp. and Flanagan, and asserts that Maxwell simply seeks permission to share facts under seal with another judge. A footnote references the Miami Herald's involvement in the related civil case Brown v. Maxwell.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Seeking permission to share facts under seal; subject of the legal arguments regarding the collateral order doctrine.
|
| Brown | Plaintiff (Civil Case) |
Named in the cited case Brown v. Maxwell.
|
| Article III Judge | Judicial Official |
Unnamed judge with whom Maxwell seeks to share facts.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Opposing party arguing against jurisdiction.
|
|
| The Miami Herald |
Media organization that filed a notice of appeal in the related civil case.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (mentioned in footnote citations).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00019416).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2018-09-26
Relationships (1)
Cited case Brown v. Maxwell.
Key Quotes (3)
"All Ms. Maxwell asks is for permission to share, under seal, the relevant facts with another Article III judge."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019416.jpg
Quote #1
"The government argues there is no jurisdiction for this Court to consider this appeal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019416.jpg
Quote #2
"The government is wrong."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019416.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document