Pappas
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal case | The Pappas case, cited as precedent, where the Court ruled on a protective order concerning infor... | N/A | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Court decision | Decision in the case of United States v. Pappas by the 2nd Circuit Court. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Court ruling | The 2nd Circuit Court ruled in United States v. Pappas. | N/A | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Legal case | The legal case of United States v. Pappas, 94 F.3d 795, 798 (2d Cir. 1996) was decided. | 2d Cir. | View |
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-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-00019604.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. It outlines the three legal conditions required for such a writ, citing precedents like 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.'. The document asserts that all three conditions are met, specifically claiming that Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and that the petitioner, Ms. Maxwell, has no other legal recourse, referencing her request to Judge Preska.
DOJ-OGR-00019601.jpg
Page 10 of a legal filing (Document 69) dated September 28, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The text argues for the validity of an interlocutory appeal under collateral order jurisdiction, countering the government's claim that issues have not been finally resolved. It discusses the government's use of subpoenas to obtain evidence for a criminal case and Maxwell's challenge to the legitimacy of those methods within the context of a civil appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019600.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues that an appeal will become moot if Ms. Maxwell is not immediately allowed to share information with Judge Preska for an unsealing process. The filing distinguishes the current situation from the precedent set in the 'Pappas' case, arguing that the nature of the protective order in that case was different. The core issue is the timing of information sharing and its effect on the legal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019421.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020. The author, likely representing Ms. Maxwell, argues that a protective order is appealable by citing precedent from cases like *Pappas* and *United States v. Salameh*. The filing refutes the government's argument by clarifying the focus of Ms. Maxwell's appeal.
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-00019404.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 58-page legal filing (Document 60, Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. It is a table of authorities, listing legal cases, federal rules of procedure, and statutes that are cited within the larger document. The page numbers provided indicate where each authority is referenced.
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-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