DOJ-OGR-00019601.jpg
608 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
608 KB
Summary
Page 10 of a legal filing (Document 69) dated September 28, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The text argues for the validity of an interlocutory appeal under collateral order jurisdiction, countering the government's claim that issues have not been finally resolved. It discusses the government's use of subpoenas to obtain evidence for a criminal case and Maxwell's challenge to the legitimacy of those methods within the context of a civil appeal.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal arguments regarding jurisdiction and appeals.
|
| Pappas | Case Citation Subject |
Referenced in a legal citation (United States v. Pappas) regarding interlocutory appeals.
|
| Salameh | Case Citation Subject |
Referenced in a legal citation (United States v. Salameh).
|
| Will | Case Citation Subject |
Referenced in a legal citation (Will v. Hallock).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution/Appellee arguing against Maxwell's position.
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Implied by citation '2d Cir.' and Case number format.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-09-28
Filing of Document 69 in Case 20-3061
Court of Appeals (likely 2nd Circuit)
Relationships (1)
Arguments presented in court filing regarding jurisdiction and subpoenas.
Key Quotes (4)
"Beyond standing for the proposition that interlocutory appeals are the exception and not the rule (which Ms. Maxwell doesn’t dispute), Pappas has nothing to add to the analysis here."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019601.jpg
Quote #1
"The balance of the government’s argument against jurisdiction misunderstands Ms. Maxwell’s position."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019601.jpg
Quote #2
"Ms. Maxwell’s argument, says the government, is “primarily focused on attacking the legitimacy of the Government’s methods of obtaining evidence that it intends to use to prosecute the criminal case through the Subpoenas to” the recipient."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019601.jpg
Quote #3
"the government claims that Ms. Maxwell “seeks to have this Court reach the merits of her arguments on that issue in the context of the civil appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated by the"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019601.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,353 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page10 of 15
discovery documents and should be appealable because of the breadth of its
restraint.” Id. (citing United States v. Salameh, 992 F.2d 445, 446–47 (2d Cir.
1993)).
restraint.” Id. (citing United States v. Salameh, 992 F.2d 445, 446–47 (2d Cir.
1993)).
Beyond standing for the proposition that interlocutory appeals are the
exception and not the rule (which Ms. Maxwell doesn’t dispute), Pappas has
nothing to add to the analysis here. Even strictly construing the three requirements
for collateral order jurisdiction, see Will, 546 U.S. at 349, the order here meets the
test.
exception and not the rule (which Ms. Maxwell doesn’t dispute), Pappas has
nothing to add to the analysis here. Even strictly construing the three requirements
for collateral order jurisdiction, see Will, 546 U.S. at 349, the order here meets the
test.
The balance of the government’s argument against jurisdiction
misunderstands Ms. Maxwell’s position. For example, according to the
government, “it is not entirely clear that all of the issues Maxwell seeks to raise in
this appeal have been finally resolved.” Doc. 37, p 17. Ms. Maxwell’s argument,
says the government, is “primarily focused on attacking the legitimacy of the
Government’s methods of obtaining evidence that it intends to use to prosecute
the criminal case through the Subpoenas to” the recipient. Doc. 37, p 17. Based on
this understanding, the government claims that Ms. Maxwell “seeks to have this
Court reach the merits of her arguments on that issue in the context of the civil
appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated by the
misunderstands Ms. Maxwell’s position. For example, according to the
government, “it is not entirely clear that all of the issues Maxwell seeks to raise in
this appeal have been finally resolved.” Doc. 37, p 17. Ms. Maxwell’s argument,
says the government, is “primarily focused on attacking the legitimacy of the
Government’s methods of obtaining evidence that it intends to use to prosecute
the criminal case through the Subpoenas to” the recipient. Doc. 37, p 17. Based on
this understanding, the government claims that Ms. Maxwell “seeks to have this
Court reach the merits of her arguments on that issue in the context of the civil
appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated by the
9
DOJ-OGR-00019601
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document