Chief Judge McMahon
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge Sweet
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Netburn
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Judicial oversight |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal ruling | Chief Judge McMahon granted the Government's application, finding Maxwell's reliance on a protect... | Court | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | Chief Judge McMahon made an explicit finding, contrary to Judge Netburn's, regarding the circumst... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Chief Judge McMahon permitted the Government to share a specific court order with Boies Schiller,... | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ex parte proceeding where government allegedly misled Chief Judge McMahon to obtain a subpoena. | Court | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Hearing | Chief Judge McMahon held a conference to inquire about the Government's request for materials and... | N/A | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Legal ruling | Chief Judge McMahon granted the Government’s application and issued a memorandum and order. | Court | View |
| 2019-03-26 | Hearing | Chief Judge McMahon held the first of two ex parte and sealed hearings to inquire about the Gover... | N/A | View |
EFTA00016118.pdf
Attorney Anthony Cecutti writes to Judge Engelmayer regarding his client, Justin Rivera, detailing ongoing issues with accessing discovery materials (via laptop) and legal counsel (via video calls) at the MCC. The letter alleges harassment by MCC staff, who referred to Rivera as 'enemy #1', and criticizes the facility's rigid scheduling. The document concludes by contrasting Rivera's harsh treatment with the extensive accommodations provided to Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC (access to computers, showers, TV, and 13 hours of discovery review daily), arguing that the disparity is based on race, gender, and class.
DOJ-OGR-00003063.jpg
This document page is from a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). The text presents a legal argument distinguishing the current case from *United States v. Oshatz*, specifically regarding the enforceability of subpoenas for deposition transcripts and protective orders. It cites Chief Judge McMahon's finding that the Government demonstrated 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the modification of a protective order, unlike in *Oshatz* where the government was characterzied as 'trolling for evidence'.
DOJ-OGR-00003052.jpg
This document page is from a government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing that the prosecution did not improperly use civil discovery materials or mislead the court. The government distinguishes its actions from the 'Chemical Bank' precedent, noting that while AUSA-1 met with the law firm Boies Schiller in February 2016, no action was taken then, and the actual investigation began in November 2018 independent of improper influence.
DOJ-OGR-00003041.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a motion from the defendant, Maxwell. The text argues against the Government's position by citing legal precedents like Palmieri and Martindell and contrasting the differing rulings of two judicial officers, Judge Netburn and Chief Judge McMahon, on the matter of sealing orders and grand jury secrecy. The core issue revolves around whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the Government's actions, with Maxwell siding with Judge Netburn's finding that the Government's arguments were 'unpersuasive'.
DOJ-OGR-00003040.jpg
This document is page 106 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text details the Government's argument that it did not circumvent the 'Martindell' legal standard when seeking evidence previously under protective orders, specifically referring to a subpoena issued to the law firm Boies Schiller. It notes that Judges McMahon and Netburn ruled that the Government had demonstrated 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the release of testimony to the grand jury despite previous protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00003029.jpg
This legal document page, filed on April 16, 2021, describes court proceedings from March 2019. Following the death of Judge Sweet, Chief Judge McMahon took over the case and held a hearing on March 26, 2019, to question the Government about its application and why the law firm Boies Schiller had not sought to be relieved from a protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00002937.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents (page ii) for a legal filing by the Department of Justice in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines arguments against the defendant's motions to suppress evidence, asserting that Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims fail and that the government acted in good faith. The document also outlines a section arguing that a jury should decide whether Maxwell committed perjury, specifically referencing depositions from April and July 2016.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity