DOJ-OGR-00019658.jpg
460 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
460 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It states that her reliance on a protective order is justified, especially in the context of a grand jury investigation. The filing also asserts that information about how the government bypassed an individual named Martindell is relevant and that Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate this issue before Judge Nathan is essential for her due process and a fair trial.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as the subject of the legal arguments, concerning her reliance on a protective order, her right to litigate...
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Mentioned as a judge with whom Ms. Maxwell wants to share information.
|
| Martindell |
Mentioned as an individual or entity that the government allegedly bypassed.
|
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge before whom Ms. Maxwell seeks to preserve her right to litigate an issue.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced as the judicial body hearing the case and appeal.
|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned as the opposing party whose conduct is being questioned, specifically for allegedly bypassing Martindell.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A grand jury investigation is mentioned as part of the context for evaluating Ms. Maxwell's reliance on a protective order.
The document discusses preserving Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate an issue concerning the government's conduct before Judge Nathan.
Court
Relationships (3)
The document describes a legal dispute where Ms. Maxwell's legal team is arguing against the government's conduct and for her due process rights.
Ms. Maxwell, as a litigant, wants to present information to Judge Preska.
Ms. Maxwell seeks to litigate an issue before Judge Nathan.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (856 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page12 of 23
repeatedly downplayed the risk of a criminal investigation [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Ms. Maxwell’s reliance on the
protective order, an unquestionably valid factor weighing against unsealing, is all
the more apparent once it is evaluated in its full context. That context now
includes: the grand jury investigation; [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Ms. Maxwell’s reliance on the
protective order, an unquestionably valid factor weighing against unsealing, is all
the more apparent once it is evaluated in its full context. That context now
includes: the grand jury investigation; [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
The information Ms. Maxwell wants to share with Judge Preska and this
Court is also relevant to show how the government bypassed Martindell. While this
Court (in either appeal) need not pass on the propriety of the government’s
conduct, preserving Ms. Maxwell’s right to litigate that issue before Judge Nathan
is essential to her due process right to a fair trial. U.S. CONST. amend. V. If the
Court is also relevant to show how the government bypassed Martindell. While this
Court (in either appeal) need not pass on the propriety of the government’s
conduct, preserving Ms. Maxwell’s right to litigate that issue before Judge Nathan
is essential to her due process right to a fair trial. U.S. CONST. amend. V. If the
9
DOJ-OGR-00019658
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document