S.D.N.Y
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00009565.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. It contains the 'Preliminary Statement' and 'Legal Standard' sections of the Government's opposition to the defendant's post-trial motions for acquittal or a new trial. The text outlines the legal standards for Rule 29 (acquittal based on insufficient evidence) and Rule 33 (new trial in the interest of justice), citing various legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00003049.jpg
This document is page 115 of a legal filing (Document 204) from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines legal arguments regarding the 'good faith exception' to the exclusionary rule, citing precedents like United States v. Leon and United States v. Moore. The text argues that suppression of evidence is not warranted because the Government acted in good faith by obtaining a grand jury subpoena and applying to the court to modify a civil protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00002947.jpg
This document is page 13 (pagination xii) of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing previous legal cases (legal precedents) cited elsewhere in the full brief, predominantly from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00004800.jpg
This court document (page 16 of a filing from June 2021) denies Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that the Government deliberately misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon regarding communications with the Boies Schiller firm (BSF). The court rules that the prosecutor's failure to mention a 2016 email/meeting with Giuffre's attorneys during an April 2019 hearing was likely because the question was understood to refer only to the *current* investigation, not all historical contacts. The text references the standard set by *Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.* regarding coordination between civil litigants and criminal prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00004726.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on May 25, 2021, likely by the prosecution. It argues that the 'S2 Indictment' was filed timely and not delayed for strategic reasons, explaining that interviews with 'Minor Victim-4' were delayed until early 2021 due to COVID-19 travel constraints. The text refutes the defendant's motion to dismiss based on pre-indictment delay.
DOJ-OGR-00020070.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal brief filed by the Department of Justice, seemingly in relation to a detention hearing. The text argues that defendants charged with sex trafficking of minors (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423) face a presumption of detention because no conditions can assure their appearance or community safety. It cites various legal precedents (English, Mercedes, Petrov) to support the Government's position that the burden is on the defendant to rebut this presumption, and discusses the standards for reopening a detention hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00005627.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 386) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It is a Table of Authorities listing legal precedents, specifically focusing on case law regarding the admissibility of expert testimony (e.g., Daubert, Kumho Tire, Joiner). The document bears a Department of Justice footer (DOJ-OGR-00005627).
DOJ-OGR-00005417.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Document 380) from October 29, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). The text is a legal argument citing multiple precedents (Boyle, Rodriguez, Hill, Watts, Carneglia) to support the exclusion of evidence related to the government's charging decisions. The argument asserts that such evidence is hearsay, irrelevant, and potentially confusing to jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00005410.jpg
This document is page 17 of 54 from a court filing (Document 380) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It argues for the sealing of exhibits containing the names or last names of specific minor victims (Minor Victim-1, 3, 4, 6) and Witness-1 to prevent harassment and protect privacy, citing various legal precedents. A footnote also argues that courtroom sketch artists should be precluded from drawing the faces of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00005251.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 18, 2021. The text outlines legal arguments regarding jury selection (*voir dire*), citing Second Circuit precedents to argue that the court, rather than attorneys, should conduct the questioning of potential jurors to ensure impartiality and efficiency. The filing asserts that the defendant (Maxwell) has provided no persuasive reason to deviate from this customary practice.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017884.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001'. It details the arguments of National Commercial Bank (NCB) against US jurisdiction, citing the closure of its NYC branch in 1992, the dissolution of its subsidiary SNCB Securities Inc. in 2001, and its lack of physical presence or general business solicitation in the US. The document bears a House Oversight Committee stamp, indicating its inclusion in a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017858.jpg
This document is page 793 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the S.D.N.Y. regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks litigation. It discusses the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and rules that alleged money laundering or charitable contributions by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki do not constitute 'commercial activity' that would strip them of sovereign immunity. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity