You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
DOJ-OGR-00019661.jpg
671 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
671 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 15 of a filing in Case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, presents arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It contends that her immediate appeal falls within the 'collateral order doctrine' and will not delay her criminal trial, contrary to the government's suggestion. The document also puts forward an alternative request for the appellate court to issue a writ of mandamus, arguing that Judge Nathan abused her discretion in a previous ruling.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Mentioned throughout the document as the subject of a criminal case and an appeal. The document discusses her legal a...
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned in a footnote regarding an allegation that she abused her discretion, which is the basis for Ms. Maxwell's ...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced throughout as the judicial body hearing the appeal and being asked to exercise mandamus jurisdiction.
|
| government | government agency |
Referenced as the opposing party in the legal case against Ms. Maxwell, whose arguments about the collateral order do...
|
Timeline (2 events)
An appeal by Ms. Maxwell's legal team concerning the collateral order doctrine and an alternative request for a writ of mandamus.
Court
Relationships (2)
The document outlines legal arguments between Ms. Maxwell's defense and the government in a criminal case and subsequent appeal.
Ms. Maxwell's legal team is arguing that Judge Nathan abused her discretion in a prior ruling, forming the basis for a request for a writ of mandamus.
Key Quotes (3)
"basic facts"Source
— Unnamed (attributed to what Ms. Maxwell is allowed to share)
(Used to contrast with 'material facts', suggesting Ms. Maxwell is restricted from sharing crucial information.)
DOJ-OGR-00019661.jpg
Quote #1
"material facts"Source
— Unnamed
(Used to describe information that Ms. Maxwell is not allowed to share, contrasted with 'basic facts'.)
DOJ-OGR-00019661.jpg
Quote #2
"remains to be seen"Source
— government
(Quoted from the government's argument regarding whether the appeal will delay the criminal case.)
DOJ-OGR-00019661.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,560 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page15 of 23
● Disclose why [REDACTED] (Court-1) granted the government’s [REDACTED] request [REDACTED].
The “basic facts” Ms. Maxwell is allowed to share thus do not include the “material facts.”
***
The collateral order doctrine is, admittedly, the exception and not the rule. Its purpose is to avoid delay and piecemeal appeals.⁴ But it’s not as inflexible as the government suggests, and its application is not oblivious to reality. It is a practical doctrine that exists for those few cases in which a post-trial appeal is inadequate to the task and the issue for immediate appeal is separable from the merits. This appeal, novel as it is, falls within those parameters.⁵
⁴ Although the government says it “remains to be seen” whether this appeal will delay the criminal case, it offers no specifics or even speculation about how such a delay might be occasioned. Ans.Br. 19 n.5. To be clear, this appeal has nothing to do with the merits of the government’s allegations against Ms. Maxwell, and it will not delay the criminal trial.
⁵ As for Ms. Maxwell’s alternative request that this Court exercise mandamus jurisdiction, the government’s brief denies that Judge Nathan abused her discretion but doesn’t otherwise contend that this Court may exercise mandamus jurisdiction. Ans.Br. 20–21. Because, as explained below, Judge Nathan abused her discretion, this Court should issue a writ of mandamus if it concludes that it lacks jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine.
12
DOJ-OGR-00019661
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document