Alameh
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167 | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00022093.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from April 24, 2020, discussing a motion by an individual named Thomas. The court denies Thomas's request for discovery related to his claim of selective or discriminatory prosecution, finding he has not met the high burden of proof required. The court dismisses Thomas's comparison to a 2005/2006 incident involving other officers, stating it is not relevant because Thomas is charged with making false statements, not with failing to conduct counts.
DOJ-OGR-00022092.jpg
This legal document, page 30 of a court filing from April 24, 2020, outlines the stringent legal standard a defendant must meet to successfully claim selective prosecution. Citing several legal precedents like Armstrong and Alameh, it explains that a defendant must provide clear evidence of both a 'discriminatory effect' (showing similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted) and a 'discriminatory purpose' (showing the prosecution was motivated by impermissible factors like race or religion). The document also specifies the evidentiary threshold required to even obtain discovery on such a claim.
DOJ-OGR-00022065.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It lists numerous legal cases that are cited as precedent within the main document, along with the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases span from 1963 to 2020 and involve various parties, including individuals, non-profit organizations, and multiple U.S. government agencies, across different federal court jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00010404.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling denying a motion from the Defendant, Maxwell. The Defendant argued that the Government's delay in bringing charges prejudiced her ability to prepare a defense, but the Court found no evidence that the delay was intentional or for tactical advantage. The Court reaffirms its previous rulings and notes that trial testimony provided legitimate explanations for the timing of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
This document constitutes page 46 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 25, 2022. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove that the Government intentionally delayed her indictment to gain a 'tactical advantage,' citing numerous Second Circuit legal precedents to support this standard. The court dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding the delay as 'specious' and notes a lack of evidence that the delay was intended to thwart her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 45 of a brief, arguing that the defendant has failed to prove the government improperly delayed an indictment. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to establish that a defendant must show not only prejudice from a delay but also that the government intentionally caused the delay to gain a tactical advantage. The argument asserts that without meeting this high standard, the defendant's motion to dismiss should fail.
DOJ-OGR-00003014.jpg
This document is page 80 of a legal filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the dismissal of an indictment due to pre-indictment delay, citing numerous Second Circuit precedents (such as Cornielle, Alameh, and Delacruz) to establish that a defendant must prove the Government intentionally delayed specifically to gain a 'tactical advantage.'
DOJ-OGR-00002944.jpg
This document is page 10 (labeled 'ix') of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 16, 2021, in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists legal precedents beginning with 'S' through 'U', including citations for *United States v. Nader* (marked 'passim', meaning cited frequently) and various Second Circuit decisions. The footer indicates this document was processed by the DOJ Office of Government Relations.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity