Chandler
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-05-10 | Legal ruling | A ruling was made in the case United States v. Chandler. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-03-31 | Legal case | Decision in the case of United States v. Chandler. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-03-31 | Legal ruling | The ruling in United States v. Chandler, which found that the coronavirus pandemic constituted a ... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-03-31 | Legal case decision | Decision in United States v. Chandler. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001583.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 10, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the main document, providing the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases listed involve the United States as a party against various individuals and span from 1978 to 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00000968.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Document 18, filed July 10, 2020) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense counsel argues for Maxwell's release on bail, citing the inability to effectively communicate with her due to MDC's COVID-19 protocols, which restrict in-person visits and delay phone calls. The text details a specific incident on July 6, 2020, where counsel struggled to connect with Maxwell to comply with a court order, and footnotes cite legal precedents where other defendants were released due to similar pandemic-related restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00000959.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 16, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases, primarily criminal cases with the United States as a party, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cited cases span from 1978 to 2020 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
DOJ-OGR-00000927.jpg
This document appears to be page 15 (internal numbering) of a legal brief filed on April 1, 2021, in Case 21-770 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). The text presents legal arguments against pre-trial detention, citing precedents such as *United States v. Stephens* and *United States v. Weigand* to argue that the COVID-19 pandemic creates obstacles to defense preparation that justify release. It specifically references a case where a 'wealthy defendant' deemed a flight risk was released due to the pandemic.
DOJ-OGR-00019877.jpg
This document is the 'Table of Authorities' (page ii) from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), originally filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited within the main brief, including cases such as Hung v. United States, United States v. Boustani, and United States v. Dreier. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019877).
DOJ-OGR-00019844.jpg
This legal document argues for the release of Ms. Maxwell from the Metropolitan Correction Center (MDC), asserting that her continued detention is unconstitutional. The filing claims that unsafe conditions at the facility, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, prevent her from adequately consulting with her lawyers and preparing her defense. A footnote describes the attorney visiting rooms at MDC as a 'death trap' due to poor air filtration, highlighting the risks faced by both inmates and legal counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed by the Government on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Government argues that it has provided sufficient and timely notice to the defense regarding Rule 404(b) evidence, citing the provision of extensive materials and relevant legal precedents. The brief refutes the defense's motion to preclude evidence based on claims of inadequate notice.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity