Van Cauwenberghe
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Biard
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988-01-01 | Legal case | Citation of the case Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522. | N/A | View |
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-00019623.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that the collateral order exception, which allows for appeals of certain pretrial orders, must be interpreted with 'utmost strictness' in criminal cases. It cites Supreme Court precedent establishing that only four specific types of pretrial orders are appealable under this doctrine. The document emphasizes that the Court has consistently refused to expand this narrow exception, and that any justification for an immediate appeal must be exceptionally strong.
DOJ-OGR-00019621.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal by Maxwell. The argument is based on the 'final judgment rule' (28 U.S.C. ยง 1291), asserting that the order being appealed is not a final decision and does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. The document notes that the Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on similar grounds on September 16, 2020.
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-00019375.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal brief filed on September 16, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (United States v. Maxwell). The text outlines legal arguments regarding the 'collateral-order doctrine' and 'interlocutory appeals' in criminal cases. It cites numerous precedents (Cohen, Stack, Abney, Sell) to demonstrate that the Supreme Court rarely permits appeals before a trial concludes, arguing that an order is only immediately reviewable if rights would be 'effectively unreviewable' later.
DOJ-OGR-00019374.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that discusses the principle of finality in criminal cases, which generally prohibits appeals until a final judgment is rendered. It outlines the very limited 'collateral order doctrine,' a narrow exception that permits immediate appeal of certain orders if they meet a strict three-part test. The text cites numerous Supreme Court cases to emphasize that this exception is rare and must be interpreted with the 'utmost strictness' in criminal proceedings to avoid undue delay and piecemeal litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00019352.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061, dated September 16, 2020) related to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Second Circuit. The text consists of legal arguments regarding the 'collateral-order doctrine' and cites multiple Supreme Court precedents (such as Stack v. Boyle and Sell v. United States) to define when pretrial orders in criminal cases can be appealed immediately. The document argues that exceptions allowing for interlocutory appeals are rare.
DOJ-OGR-00019351.jpg
This page from a legal document discusses the principle of finality in criminal cases, which generally prohibits appeals until a final judgment is rendered. It outlines the narrow 'collateral order' exception that permits immediate appeals under specific, strict conditions. The text cites multiple Supreme Court cases to emphasize that this exception is rare and must be interpreted with the 'utmost strictness' to avoid the damaging effects of piecemeal litigation on the administration of justice.
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