Stringer
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020780.jpg
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated April 16, 2021, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss perjury charges. The Court denied the motion, stating that the charges are legally tenable and that arguments regarding the ambiguity of questions asked during her civil deposition are matters for a jury to decide. The document cites several legal precedents (Lighte, Wolfson) regarding perjury and 'knowing falsity'.
DOJ-OGR-00020779.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in the case against Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The court addresses and rejects several of Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is impermissibly vague, specifically concerning the lack of precise dates for the alleged abuse, the inclusion of noncriminal conduct, and the omission of victims' names. The court cites legal precedents to affirm that the indictment is sufficient, particularly in cases involving the sexual abuse of children where victims may struggle to recall exact dates.
DOJ-OGR-00003115.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is a portion of a legal argument defending an indictment against a motion to dismiss. The argument asserts that using pseudonyms for minor victims and providing an approximate date range (1994-1997) for the alleged crimes is legally sound, citing precedents like Stringer, Kidd, and Stavroulakis. It further argues the defendant is not prejudiced, as the government has provided and will provide specific details, such as victim birth information and witness names, during discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00003113.jpg
This document is a legal filing from April 16, 2021, arguing that an indictment against a defendant is legally sufficient. It cites several legal precedents, including Russell v. United States and United States v. Pirro, to establish the standards for specificity in indictments. The author contends that the indictment in question meets these standards by laying out all essential elements of the crimes charged and that the defendant has provided no legal authority to suggest otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00003112.jpg
This document is page 178 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00003112) of a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated April 16, 2021. It is a legal memorandum discussing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 and the standards for the sufficiency of an indictment. The text cites various legal precedents (Alfonso, Resendiz-Ponce, Wey, Stringer) to argue that an indictment generally does not need to specify evidentiary details or how an offense was committed, provided it tracks the statutory language and protects against double jeopardy.
DOJ-OGR-00002957.jpg
This document is page xxii of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases from 'United States v. Schafrick' to 'United States v. Swanson,' along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the main document. The cases cited span from 1972 to 2015 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity