Appellant
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
USAO-SDNY
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
John M. Leventhal
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Annabi
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
USAO-SDNY
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal ruling | The District Court rejected the Appellant's attempt to enforce the NPA against the S2 Indictment,... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal argument | The Appellant argues that all charges are barred by the five-year statute of limitations for nonc... | this Circuit | View |
| 2023-01-18 | Legal proceeding | The court issued an Order granting the Appellant a word limit of 20,000 words. | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-05 | Filing deadline | Deadline to cure a defect in a filing and resubmit the document for Case 21-58. | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-05 | Deadline | Deadline to cure a deficient filing by resubmitting a text-searchable document. | N/A | View |
| 2019-08-07 | Filing deadline | Deadline to cure defect(s) and resubmit a document for Case 19-2221. | N/A | View |
| 2019-08-05 | Legal filing | A notice of additional counsel was submitted on behalf of the appellant. | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2019-08-05 | Legal notice | The Court issued a Notice of Defective Filing because the submitted document was not text-searcha... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Conduct charged under Count Six | SDNY (implied jurisdiction) | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Period of conduct charged under Count Six | Not specified | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000910.jpg
This legal document is a notice of a deficient filing in Case 21-770, dated April 1, 2021. The filing was rejected because the submitted pages, including T-1080 and exhibits, were not text-searchable. The filer is instructed to correct this defect and resubmit the document by April 5, 2021, to avoid having the document stricken and the appeal potentially dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00000831.jpg
This legal document, dated August 5, 2019, is a notice of a filing defect in Case 19-2221. The filer is ordered to correct the defect and resubmit the document by August 7, 2019. Failure to comply could lead to the document being stricken or the entire appeal being dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00021105.jpg
This legal document argues that the Appellant's convictions for Mann Act violations (Counts Three and Four) must be vacated. The argument centers on the statute of limitations, asserting that the extension under § 3283 does not apply because it is limited to offenses involving a 'child,' whereas the Defendant's accusers were adults over 25 when charges were filed in 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00021103.jpg
This legal document presents an argument that all charges against the Appellant should be dismissed because they are barred by the five-year statute of limitations for noncapital offenses. The document contends that the Government's reliance on a specific exception (18 U.S.C. § 3283) for crimes against children is an overreach and warns that a broad interpretation of this statute could have significant negative consequences within the judicial circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00021094.jpg
This legal document argues that the government is precluded from charging the Appellant under Count Six due to a prior Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The argument is based on legal precedent against prosecuting the same crime in a new district and asserts that the charge, involving the trafficking of a witness named Carolyn, falls within the time period covered by the NPA. The document also references a court's finding that the NPA covers Maxwell's involvement in offenses committed by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021086.jpg
This document is a page from an appellate legal brief (Case 22-1426) arguing that the District Court erred in applying the 'Annabi' legal precedent to the Appellant's case. The text argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) originated outside the Second Circuit and should not be subject to its specific legal canons, and further argues that the conduct charged in Count Six falls within the time period covered by the original NPA. The document specifically challenges the USAO-SDNY's charges relative to the 2001-2007 offense period.
DOJ-OGR-00021085.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It contains legal arguments attempting to distance the current case from the precedent set in *U.S. v. Annabi*, arguing that *Annabi* is an outlier regarding whether a plea agreement in one district binds another. The text consists primarily of extensive footnotes citing various Second Circuit decisions (*Prisco*, *Ashraf*, *Salameh*, etc.) that limited plea agreements to specific US Attorney's Offices, supporting the government's position against the Appellant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell).
DOJ-OGR-00021078.jpg
This legal document argues that the Appellant, identified as Maxwell, is a third-party beneficiary of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein and therefore has standing to enforce it. The brief contends that a District Court erred in its ruling that the NPA's immunity for co-conspirators only applied to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), arguing the agreement's plain text referring to "the United States" should bind all U.S. Attorney's Offices, including the one in the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY).
DOJ-OGR-00021049.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents (page i) for an appellate brief filed on February 28, 2023, in Case 22-1426. It outlines legal arguments asserting that the 'Appellant' (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) should have all counts dismissed based on the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), claiming status as a third-party beneficiary and arguing that the USAO-SDNY is bound by the 'potential co-conspirators' provision.
DOJ-OGR-00021844.jpg
This document is page 15 (labeled 20 of 51 in the header) of a legal appellate brief filed on November 1, 2024. It argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) covering the 2001-2007 period should have prevented the USAO-SDNY from charging the Appellant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) for conduct between 2001-2004. The text cites legal precedents (*Annabi*, *Alessi*, *Papa*) regarding whether plea agreements bind other US Attorney Offices and argues the Appellant was improperly denied an evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00019393.jpg
This legal document is a court notice dated September 23, 2020, for case 20-3061, regarding an incorrect filing. It instructs the filer to correct the docket entry to 'SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION' and resubmit the document by September 25, 2020. The notice warns that failure to comply may result in the document being stricken or the dismissal of the appeal.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | Appellant | Clerk of Court, S... | $605.00 | Filing fee for a Notice of Appeal | View |
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity