Second Circuit Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-01 | N/A | U.S. v. Maxwell Decision | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
| 2021-04-27 | Legal filing | A Second Circuit Court Order was issued. | N/A | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court dismissal of Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order modification. | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court denial of Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil appeal Guiffre... | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Court denial of Maxwell's request for a writ of mandamus. | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2019-08-01 | N/A | Second Circuit Court of Appeals issues opinion in United States v. Boustani | New York | View |
| 2019-07-03 | N/A | Second Circuit Decision regarding the unsealing of Epstein files | New York | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Decision in United States v. Boustani | Second Circuit | View |
| 0012-08-01 | N/A | Scheduled filing of bail pending appeal motion. | Second Circuit | View |
EFTA00020437.pdf
This document is an email correspondence between attorney David Oscar Markus and Assistant United States Attorneys regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Markus informs the government of his representation of Maxwell in her bail appeal and requests access to specific unredacted docket entries, while the government responds regarding document availability and existing protective orders.
EFTA00016130.pdf
This document contains an email chain from July and August 2019 regarding the case 'US v. Gatto'. Jonathan M. Albano of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP asks other counsel if they object to him filing a copy of the Second Circuit's decision in 'Brown v. Maxwell' (a case involving Ghislaine Maxwell unsealing) with the court. The underlying email from a redacted Assistant US Attorney provides the government's opposition to a motion by Oath Inc. to intervene in the Gatto case.
DOJ-OGR-00001422.jpg
This document is an appendix from a legal filing in Case 21-770, dated May 17, 2021. It lists several court orders and filings from April and May 2021 related to Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center. The document is respectfully submitted and signed by her attorneys, Leah S. Saffian and David Oscar Markus.
DOJ-OGR-00000852.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from late 2020 detailing procedural updates in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include the dismissal of an appeal by the Second Circuit, extensions of discovery deadlines, and disputes over the disclosure of materials and Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the MDC. Judge Nathan issued orders requiring the parties to confer regarding Maxwell's request for Warden Heriberto Tellez to address her detention concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00019595.jpg
This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 28, 2020, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 20-3061). The text argues that a district court's refusal to modify a protective order is immediately appealable under the 'collateral order doctrine.' The filing contends that the appeal is necessary to share 'critical new information' with Judge Preska before deposition materials in the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* are unsealed, arguing that post-judgment review would be moot.
DOJ-OGR-00016751.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text records a judge providing legal guidance regarding the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements and extrinsic evidence under Rule 613(b). The judge cites specific case law (Almonte, Leonardi) to explain that law enforcement notes generally do not prove inconsistency unless the witness subscribed to them or the interviewing officer is called as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00020340.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing from May 17, 2021, in case 21-58. It contains an appendix listing recent court orders and filings related to Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions, including a letter from her, a response from the government, and her subsequent reply. The document was respectfully submitted by her legal counsel, Leah S. Saffian and David Oscar Markus of MARKUS/MOSS PLLC.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017857.jpg
This document is page 792 of a Federal Supplement legal opinion (likely In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, based on context and case citations). It discusses a motion by the National Commercial Bank (NCB) to dismiss a case based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court denies the motion without prejudice, ordering 'limited jurisdictional discovery' to determine if the Public Investment Fund (PIF) qualifies as a political subdivision of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The document also references exceptions to sovereign immunity, including 'state sponsor of terrorism' and 'commercial activities.' The footer indicates this document was part of a House Oversight Committee production. There is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023375.jpg
This document is a Westlaw printout (dated 2019) bearing a House Oversight Committee bates stamp. It details legal proceedings regarding the 'Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation, specifically summarizing Judge Daniels' 2010 dismissals of numerous defendants (including members of the Bin Laden family, Saudi banks, and other individuals) for lack of personal jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The text focuses on the legal standards for liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the requirement to prove specific intent to support the 9/11 attacks.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity