2d Cir.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00021115.jpg
Page 68 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. The text presents a legal argument citing 'Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.' regarding the retroactive application of statutes. It specifically argues that the 2003 amendment to § 3283 cannot be applied retroactively by the Government.
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-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-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-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00008989.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that the Court possesses the authority to release the sealed Jury Questionnaire and voir dire testimony of Juror 50. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that such a release is permissible but is subject to a balancing test, weighing public access against juror privacy, security, and potential harassment. The document emphasizes that any limitations on access to these materials must be narrowly defined and justified by a demonstrated need.
DOJ-OGR-00008919.jpg
This legal document, dated February 9, 2022, from Winston & Strawn LLP, describes the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and its practice of filing amicus curiae briefs. It cites legal precedents for amicus participation and requests the Court's permission to file an amicus brief regarding a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The document notes that Counsel for the Defendant has consented, while Counsel for the DOJ has not yet responded to inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that refutes the defendant's argument that the court failed to properly question Juror 50 about potential biases. The filing asserts that Juror 50 repeatedly confirmed his ability to be impartial and decide the case based on the evidence, and that the court's voir dire process was correct in not delving into specific defense theories, citing legal precedent about the purpose of jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00002958.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204) filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous legal cases, primarily with the United States as the plaintiff, along with their full legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited are from various federal courts and span several decades, serving as legal precedent for the arguments made in the filing.
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-00005862.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The text presents the prosecution's (Government's) argument that using the term "victim" to refer to witnesses is not prejudicial to the defendant's rights. The argument is supported by citing numerous legal precedents from various U.S. courts which have previously ruled on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00005270.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 362) from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 20, 2021. The text argues for public access to the jury selection process (voir dire) and juror questionnaires, citing numerous legal precedents including United States v. Shkreli and Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court. It asserts that First Amendment rights require these proceedings and documents to be presumptively open to the press and public.
DOJ-OGR-00011564.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or ruling, filed on July 22, 2022. A judge overrules a defendant's objection to a sentencing enhancement, arguing that applying an enhancement for 'undue influence' over a minor in a commercial sex act case is not impermissible 'double counting'. The judge explains that the enhancement addresses a different type of harm than the base offense level and cites precedent from 'United States v. Watkins' and 'United States v. Kohlmeier' to support the ruling.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017707.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 72 of 78 in the production) bearing the name of David Schoen, a lawyer known for representing Jeffrey Epstein. The text presents a legal argument regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing that victim status and rights should apply even to crimes that have not yet been charged, citing Senator Kyl's legislative intent. It criticizes the NACDL's proposal for fact-finding hearings to determine victim status and argues against the Advisory Committee's limitations on victims' rights in proposed rules. The document appears to be part of an evidentiary submission to the House Oversight Committee, likely related to the investigation into the handling of the Epstein non-prosecution agreement and the violation of victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023369.jpg
This document appears to be page 9 of a legal brief or research document (indicated by the Westlaw footer and Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023369) listing a Table of Authorities. It cites numerous legal cases primarily related to terrorism, banking liability, and civil procedure, including 'United States v. Bin Laden' and 'Weiss v. Nat'l Westminster Bank PLC'. While titled under 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001', the document originates from a House Oversight Committee production, likely related to investigations into financial institutions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023368.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page from a legal filing, marked with Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023368. It lists various legal precedents and case citations, primarily focusing on litigation related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, sovereign immunity, and international liability (Alien Tort Statute). While the document is part of a collection likely reviewed by the House Oversight Committee (possibly related to an investigation involving Epstein or similar legal themes of jurisdiction/immunity), this specific page contains no direct mentions of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or their associates.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023365.jpg
This document is a page from a Table of Contents and Table of Authorities for a legal filing related to the 'In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. It outlines legal arguments regarding the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the Torture Victim Protection Act, and negligence claims against defendants alleged to have materially supported al-Qaeda, specifically mentioning 'NCB' (National Commercial Bank) and 'Sovereign Defendants.' The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional production, likely related to investigations into financial networks supporting terrorism.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity