DOJ-OGR-00019609.jpg
338 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (table of contents)
File Size:
338 KB
Summary
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020 (Document 82 in Case 20-3061). It outlines arguments asserting that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. The document references Judge Nathan and details the structure of the argument spanning 30 pages.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal proceedings ('Maxwell's Appeal', 'Maxwell's Motion')
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Issued an order referenced in the Table of Contents
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
Mentioned in 'The District Court Litigation' and 'District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion'
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by footer 'DOJ-OGR')
|
Timeline (4 events)
Relationships (1)
Judge Nathan issued an order that Maxwell is appealing.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,312 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page2 of 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. The Indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. The Protective Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. The District Court Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Judge Nathan’s Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
E. Maxwell’s Appeal of the Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ARGUMENT:
POINT I—This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear
This Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Applicable Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
POINT II—The District Court Did Not Abuse Its
Discretion in Denying Maxwell’s Motion to
Modify the Protective Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A. Applicable Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
B. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
PAGE
Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. The Indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. The Protective Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. The District Court Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Judge Nathan’s Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
E. Maxwell’s Appeal of the Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ARGUMENT:
POINT I—This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear
This Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Applicable Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
POINT II—The District Court Did Not Abuse Its
Discretion in Denying Maxwell’s Motion to
Modify the Protective Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A. Applicable Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
B. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
DOJ-OGR-00019609
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document