UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
CABRANES
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
WESLEY
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
LOHIER
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-04-27 | Court ruling | The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's orders and denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion f... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2021-04-27 | Court ruling | The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's orders and denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion f... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2021-04-01 | Legal notice | Issuance of a 'NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING' regarding the submitted 'Notice of Appearance as Addit... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2021-04-01 | Legal notice | The Court issued a Notice of Defective Filing for the motion for bail. | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2021-04-01 | Legal notice issuance | Issuance of a 'NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING' by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second C... | Thurgood Marshall U.S. Cour... | View |
| 2020-10-19 | Court ruling | The appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell was dismissed, and the motion to consolidate was denied... | N/A | View |
| 2020-10-19 | Court ruling | The court dismissed the appeal of Defendant-Appellant Maxwell and denied the motion to consolidat... | N/A | View |
| 2020-09-28 | Court order | The court granted the appellant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) motion to file three documents under seal: ... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2019-08-05 | Legal notice | The Court issued a Notice of Defective Filing because the submitted document was not text-searcha... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019690.jpg
This document is page 3 of a Second Circuit Court of Appeals order dated November 9, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The court dismisses Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order due to lack of jurisdiction, denies her petition for a writ of mandamus, and denies her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case *Guiffre v. Maxwell*. The court cites various precedents to establish that the protective order does not fall under the 'collateral order exception' and that Maxwell failed to prove exceptional circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00019688.jpg
This is a Summary Order and Mandate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, issued on November 9, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061-cr). The document lists the panel of judges (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi) who presided over the term held on October 19, 2020. It identifies the legal counsel for both the Appellee (US Attorneys including Lara Pomerantz and Maurene Comey) and the Defendant-Appellant (Adam Mueller and Ty Gee of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.).
DOJ-OGR-00019687.jpg
This is a legal notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020, regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 20-3061cr). The document formally announces that the case manager assigned to the matter has been changed and provides a phone number for any related inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00019686.jpg
This legal document is the final page of a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020. The court dismisses an appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell, citing a lack of merit in her arguments, and also denies a motion to consolidate as moot. The order is signed by the Clerk of the Court, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe.
DOJ-OGR-00019685.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order dated October 19, 2020, from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Case 20-3061. The court dismisses Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of a District Court's denial to modify a protective order, ruling it lacks jurisdiction because the order is not immediately appealable. The court also declines to issue a writ of mandamus and denies Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case Guiffre v. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019683.jpg
This document is the first page of a Summary Order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020. It lists the judicial panel (Judges Cabranes, Pooler, and Raggi) presiding over the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061-cr). It identifies the legal counsel for both the United States (Appellee) and Maxwell (Defendant-Appellant).
DOJ-OGR-00019681.jpg
This document is a 'Bill of Costs Instructions' sheet from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020. It relates to the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket #: 20-3061cr) and outlines the procedural requirements for filing a bill of costs under FRAP 39. The document lists the presiding judges (Chief Judge Livingston and DC Judge Nathan) and provides specific rules regarding filing deadlines, verification, service, and allowable printing charges.
DOJ-OGR-00019680.jpg
This legal document, dated October 19, 2020, is a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Case 20-3061. The court dismisses an appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell concerning an unsealing order, finding her arguments to be without merit. The court also denies a motion to consolidate as moot.
DOJ-OGR-00019679.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order dated October 19, 2020, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order. The court rules it lacks jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order, denies her request for a writ of mandamus finding no abuse of discretion by the District Court, and denies her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case *Guiffre v. Maxwell*.
DOJ-OGR-00019677.jpg
This document is the first page of a Summary Order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020, for the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It identifies the presiding judges (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi) and lists the legal counsel for both the appellee (United States), led by AUSA Lara Pomerantz, and the defendant-appellant (Ghislaine Maxwell), represented by Adam Mueller. The order was issued from the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in New York City.
DOJ-OGR-00019676.jpg
A court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated October 9, 2020, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061). The order grants the Appellant's (Maxwell) motion to file an unredacted reply brief under seal without prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00019671.jpg
This is a legal motion filed on October 8, 2020, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., requests permission to file an unredacted reply brief under seal. The motion is part of an appeal concerning a lower court order by Judge Nathan which denied a request to modify a criminal protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00019647.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing, specifically 'Ghislaine Maxwell’s Reply Brief', submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on October 8, 2020. The brief is part of an appeal (Case 20-3061) from a lower court case (20-CR-330) in the Southern District of New York, where the United States of America is the plaintiff against defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell is represented by attorneys Ty Gee and Adam Mueller of the Denver-based law firm HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
DOJ-OGR-00019645.jpg
This document is an Oral Argument Statement filed by Lara Pomerantz on behalf of the United States of America in the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell' before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Dated October 2, 2020, the United States, as the Appellee, indicates a preference for oral argument only if at least one other party also requests it. The form outlines procedures and requirements for requesting and conducting oral arguments for the appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019608.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal brief filed by the United States of America on October 2, 2020, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case is an appeal by Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell (Docket No. 20-3061) from a decision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The brief lists the government's legal counsel, including Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lara Pomerantz, who is set to argue the case.
DOJ-OGR-00010436.jpg
This document is page 15 (PDF page 19) of a legal filing from June 15, 2022, regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that applying specific sentencing guidelines (§ 4B1.5) results in an anomaly where Maxwell faces a harsher sentence range (292-365 months) than a hypothetical repeat sex offender (262-327 months). The text explicitly compares Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein, arguing it is unjust for her to face the same sentencing range as Epstein, whom the defense characterizes as 'indisputably the more culpable offender.'
DOJ-OGR-00010397.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, details a dispute during a trial over how to respond to a note from a deliberating jury. The Defendant proposed several responses, which the Court deemed legally erroneous, including a simple 'no' and later a request to direct the jury to specific lines of an instruction. The core issue revolves around the Defendant's argument concerning the purpose of a return flight in relation to illegal activity and the Court's discretion in guiding the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00010371.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court filing from April 29, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text outlines applicable law regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically discussing 'multiplicity' in indictments and how to determine if conspiracy charges involve the same agreement. It cites various legal precedents including Brown v. Ohio, United States v. Jones, and a previous ruling in the Maxwell case itself.
DOJ-OGR-00010337.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Document 653) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 1, 2022. It outlines the legal standards for a 'McDonough inquiry' regarding potential juror misconduct, specifically discussing whether a juror deliberately concealed truth during voir dire. The text cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)(1), emphasizing that jurors generally cannot testify about deliberations to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 647, filed March 11, 2022) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the jury may have erroneously convicted Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four based on a finding that she intended sexual activity to occur in New Mexico, rather than New York as required by law. The text cites a 'Jury Note' (Court Exhibit #15) as evidence that the jury was confused about the location requirement and asserts the Court failed to correct this misunderstanding.
DOJ-OGR-00009903.jpg
This document is the cover page for Volume XVI of a legal appendix filed on February 24, 2022, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for case number 13-1388-cr. The case is an appeal by Defendant-Appellant David Parse and others against the United States of America. The document identifies the parties involved and lists the legal counsel for both the government (Appellee) and the appellant David Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022, arguing for a new trial or evidentiary hearing based on juror misconduct. The defense argues that a second juror (besides Juror No. 50) failed to disclose being a victim of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire, citing a New York Times article and Juror No. 50's statements as evidence. The document also argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to discovery regarding communications outside of deliberations, specifically referencing social media material.
DOJ-OGR-00009588.jpg
This document is page 26 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text outlines legal arguments regarding 'Applicable Law' specifically concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause and the concept of 'multiplicity' in criminal charges. It cites various precedents to argue that charges covering different schemes under different statutes are not identical and that the Court should reject the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00003060.jpg
This document is page 126 of a legal filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It contains legal arguments regarding the 'state action' doctrine and the Fifth Amendment, specifically addressing whether a private entity acts as a government agent. The document explicitly argues that the law firm Boies Schiller is not an agent of the Government and that the defendant's claim fails for lack of demonstrated state action.
DOJ-OGR-00004743.jpg
Mandate issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 7, 2021, affirming the District Court's orders denying bail to Ghislaine Maxwell. The court denied her motion for bail or temporary pretrial release. The document also notes that Maxwell's counsel raised concerns about sleep deprivation during incarceration, which the appellate court directed back to the District Court.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity