DOJ-OGR-00019423.jpg
668 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (legal brief/appeal)
File Size:
668 KB
Summary
This document is page 24 (labeled 19 in the brief) of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, related to Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share specific information with Judge Preska to properly decide on unsealing deposition materials and a motion to stay, invoking *Martindell* protections and the Fifth Amendment. The text criticizes the government for attempting to keep relevant information secret from a 'co-equal' judge.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Seeking to protect rights regarding the unsealing of documents and Fifth Amendment protections.
|
| Judge Preska | District Court Judge |
Judge who needs information to decide on unsealing deposition material and ruling on a motion to stay.
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Plaintiff |
Mentioned in case citation Giuffre v. Maxwell.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
Where the criminal case is being adjudicated.
|
|
| The Government |
Opposing Maxwell's arguments; accused of keeping information from Judge Preska.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Cited via 'Will, 546 U.S. at 349'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-09-24
Relationships (2)
Maxwell seeks to share information with Judge Preska regarding unsealing deposition material.
Maxwell argues against the government's contention regarding her appeal and the Martindell issue.
Key Quotes (4)
"preserve the status quo and protect Ms. Maxwell’s right to litigate Martindell and the Fifth Amendment in the criminal proceeding."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019423.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell’s point is that, unless the unsealing order is reversed, Ms. Maxwell likely won’t be able to “properly litigate” the Martindell issue at all."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019423.jpg
Quote #2
"All Ms. Maxwell seeks here is an order allowing her to share with Judge Preska information that is essential to her decision to unseal the deposition material"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019423.jpg
Quote #3
"whether it is proper for one Article III judge, at the request of the government, to keep secret from a co-equal judge information relevant and material to the second judge’s role"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019423.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,558 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page24 of 58
preserve the status quo and protect Ms. Maxwell’s right to litigate
Martindell and the Fifth Amendment in the criminal proceeding.
Martindell and the Fifth Amendment in the criminal proceeding.
Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413, ECF Dkt. 69, p 33. Only by mischaracterizing Ms.
Maxwell’s argument can the government contend that she “seeks to have this
Court reach the merits of her arguments on [the Martindell] issue in the context of
the civil appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated
by the District Court in the criminal case.” See Doc. 37, p 17. Ms. Maxwell’s point
is that, unless the unsealing order is reversed, Ms. Maxwell likely won’t be able to
“properly litigate” the Martindell issue at all.
Maxwell’s argument can the government contend that she “seeks to have this
Court reach the merits of her arguments on [the Martindell] issue in the context of
the civil appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated
by the District Court in the criminal case.” See Doc. 37, p 17. Ms. Maxwell’s point
is that, unless the unsealing order is reversed, Ms. Maxwell likely won’t be able to
“properly litigate” the Martindell issue at all.
Nor is this appeal the proper forum for deciding whether the government
improperly circumvented Martindell. All Ms. Maxwell seeks here is an order
allowing her to share with Judge Preska information that is essential to her decision
to unseal the deposition material and to rule on a motion to stay, information Judge
Preska did not know at the time and information the government insists should be
kept from her. And that issue—whether it is proper for one Article III judge, at the
request of the government, to keep secret from a co-equal judge information
relevant and material to the second judge’s role in deciding a matter before her—is
properly reviewed on an interlocutory basis because it is “an important issue
completely separate from the merits of the action.” Will, 546 U.S. at 349.
improperly circumvented Martindell. All Ms. Maxwell seeks here is an order
allowing her to share with Judge Preska information that is essential to her decision
to unseal the deposition material and to rule on a motion to stay, information Judge
Preska did not know at the time and information the government insists should be
kept from her. And that issue—whether it is proper for one Article III judge, at the
request of the government, to keep secret from a co-equal judge information
relevant and material to the second judge’s role in deciding a matter before her—is
properly reviewed on an interlocutory basis because it is “an important issue
completely separate from the merits of the action.” Will, 546 U.S. at 349.
19
DOJ-OGR-00019423
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document