DOJ-OGR-00019651.jpg
578 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appeal)
File Size:
578 KB
Summary
This document is page 2 (labeled Page 5 of 23 in header) of a legal brief filed on October 8, 2020, in Case 20-3061 involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's stance on Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights and civil protective order, specifically criticizing the government for claiming Maxwell failed to articulate why Judge Preska needs certain information (which is redacted). The document also begins a section on 'Jurisdiction,' outlining the three conditions for interlocutory review under the collateral order doctrine, citing 'Will v. Hallock'.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal arguments regarding protective orders and the Fifth Amendment.
|
| Loretta Preska | Judge |
District Court Judge referenced in the context of needing to know specific facts.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution/DOJ, opposing party in the legal brief.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated by Bates stamp).
|
|
| Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. |
Cited in a legal precedent case.
|
|
| Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. |
Cited in a legal precedent case.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-10-08
Filing of Document 94 in Case 20-3061.
Court of Appeals (implied by Case number format and 'interlocutory review')
Relationships (2)
Legal arguments presented against the government's claims regarding Maxwell's explanations.
Arguments concerning what Judge Preska needs to know regarding the case facts.
Key Quotes (4)
"Instead of fairly addressing these arguments, however, the government retreats to the claim that Ms. Maxwell 'does not articulate' or 'does not explain' why Judge Preska and this Court need to know [REDACTED]"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019651.jpg
Quote #1
"But just because the government lacks a persuasive response does not mean Ms. Maxwell hasn’t explained or articulated herself."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019651.jpg
Quote #2
"The question then is what could justify keeping Judge Preska and this Court in the dark about the relevant facts."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019651.jpg
Quote #3
"There are three conditions to seeking interlocutory review under the collateral order doctrine"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019651.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,254 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page5 of 23
on the civil protective order’s guarantee of confidentiality in declining to invoke
her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Instead of fairly addressing these arguments, however, the government
retreats to the claim that Ms. Maxwell “does not articulate” or “does not explain”
why Judge Preska and this Court need to know [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]. Ans.Br. 18 n.4 &
27. But just because the government lacks a persuasive response does not mean Ms.
Maxwell hasn’t explained or articulated herself.
retreats to the claim that Ms. Maxwell “does not articulate” or “does not explain”
why Judge Preska and this Court need to know [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]. Ans.Br. 18 n.4 &
27. But just because the government lacks a persuasive response does not mean Ms.
Maxwell hasn’t explained or articulated herself.
The question then is what could justify keeping Judge Preska and this Court
in the dark about the relevant facts. And if that’s the question, the government’s
brief provides no answer.
in the dark about the relevant facts. And if that’s the question, the government’s
brief provides no answer.
Jurisdiction
There are three conditions to seeking interlocutory review under the
collateral order doctrine: The order on appeal must (1) conclusively determine the
disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the
merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final
judgment. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct &
Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993)). The government
collateral order doctrine: The order on appeal must (1) conclusively determine the
disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the
merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final
judgment. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct &
Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993)). The government
2
DOJ-OGR-00019651
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document