Caparros
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Court dismissed an appeal of a protective order in a criminal case involving a defendant name... | N/A | View |
| 1986-01-01 | Court ruling | The 2nd Circuit Court ruled in United States v. Caparros. | N/A | View |
| 1986-01-01 | Legal case | The legal case of United States v. Caparros, 800 F.2d 23, 24 (2d Cir. 1986) was decided. | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg
This legal document, part of an appellate court filing, argues that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion by Maxwell to modify a protective order. The filing contends that the appellate court should not issue a writ of mandamus and should instead affirm the lower court's decision, as the case does not present the rare and exceptional circumstances required for such intervention.
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 82) filed on October 2, 2020. The text argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to use a writ of mandamus to modify a Protective Order, citing that such writs are 'extraordinary remedies' reserved for exceptional circumstances like judicial abuse of power. It references legal precedents (Cheney, Glotzer) to support the argument that pretrial discovery orders are generally not reviewable on direct appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019630.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against an immediate appeal by a party named Maxwell regarding the use of criminal discovery materials. It contends that Maxwell has not met the legal standard for such a review, citing precedents like Flanagan, Martoma, and Guerrero. The document asserts that Maxwell's concerns about privacy and publicity can be adequately addressed during a standard appeal after a final judgment is rendered in her criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019625.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (related to Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues that protective orders regarding discovery documents in criminal cases are not subject to interlocutory appeal, citing Second Circuit precedents like U.S. v. Caparros and U.S. v. Pappas. The argument specifically asserts that Maxwell's jurisdictional arguments fail to meet the criteria for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
DOJ-OGR-00019612.jpg
This document appears to be page 5 (labeled Roman numeral iv) of a legal brief or filing related to Case 20-3061, filed on October 2, 2020. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main document, including United States v. Caparros and United States v. Kerik. The footer indicates it is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR) release.
DOJ-OGR-00019599.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, related to Case 20-3061. The author argues that the current case, involving Ms. Maxwell, is distinct from the legal precedent set in the 'Caparros' case. The key distinction made is that while the defendant in Caparros sought to make documents public, Ms. Maxwell seeks to provide documents to judicial officers, such as Judge Preska, under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00019420.jpg
This page from a legal document argues that an appeal by Ms. Maxwell should be heard before her criminal trial concludes, otherwise it will become moot. The argument centers on her need to share information with Judge Preska for an ongoing unsealing process, a situation the author distinguishes from legal precedents like Caparros and Pappas.
DOJ-OGR-00019419.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 20-3061 dated September 24, 2020, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, countering the government's position. The author argues that the government misinterprets and improperly relies on two precedent cases, United States v. Caparros (1986) and United States v. Pappas (1996), regarding the appealability of protective orders. The document specifically analyzes the Caparros case to demonstrate why it is distinguishable from Ms. Maxwell's current situation.
DOJ-OGR-00019378.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 20-3061, argues that a specific court order is not immediately appealable. It cites Title 28 of the United States Code and case law (Pappas, Caparros, Van Cauwenberghe) to establish that discovery orders, even if framed with restrictive language, do not qualify as appealable injunctions. The document concludes that the order in question is not a final judgment and does not fit into the narrow exception for appealable collateral orders in criminal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019377.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It presents legal arguments regarding the 'collateral-order doctrine' and protective orders in criminal cases, arguing that such orders are generally not subject to interlocutory appeal. The text cites various precedents (Firestone, Caparros, Pappas) to support the argument that restricting the dissemination of discovery materials does not violate First Amendment rights and that challenges to such orders should await final judgment.
DOJ-OGR-00019362.jpg
This legal document argues that an appeal by Maxwell should be dismissed because the order in question is not subject to interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. It further argues that Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal case appeal with a separate civil case appeal (Giuffre v. Maxwell) should be denied because the two cases are factually and legally distinct, and the Government has no involvement or interest in the civil matter.
DOJ-OGR-00019357.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against an interlocutory appeal sought by a party named Maxwell. The author contends that Maxwell's reasons for appeal, related to pretrial discovery and the potential unsealing of documents, do not meet the high legal threshold for an appeal before a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including cases like *United States v. Martoma* and *United States v. Guerrero*, to support its position that the issues are not significant enough to warrant immediate review.
DOJ-OGR-00019354.jpg
This legal document, page 12 of a filing from September 16, 2020, argues that protective orders regulating the use of documents in a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal. It cites numerous court precedents, including from the Supreme Court, to establish that such orders are not immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine and do not constitute an impermissible prior restraint under the First Amendment. The document asserts that any challenge to a litigant's right to release documents can wait until a final judgment is rendered.
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-00019654.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, argues against the government's position that Ms. Maxwell must wait until after her criminal trial to challenge certain judicial decisions. The filing asserts that the current appeal is the correct and only time to review Judge Preska's unsealing order from a related civil case, as a panel in the criminal case would lack jurisdiction. It also refutes the government's claim that a post-judgment appeal would be an effective remedy for premature unsealing of materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a brief or opinion, dated October 2, 2020. It argues against allowing an immediate, or interlocutory, appeal from a person named Maxwell regarding a Protective Order. The text cites several legal precedents (Mohawk, Pappas, Van Cauwenberghe) to support the position that such orders are not appealable until after a final judgment is rendered in the case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity