Supreme Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00000016.jpg
This is page 15 of an appellate court decision (likely the Second Circuit) dated September 17, 2024, affirming legal interpretations in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rejects Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations for Counts Three, Four, and Six, citing the 'facts of the case' approach over the 'categorical approach' and referencing testimony from a victim named 'Jane' regarding interstate transportation and sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00021108.jpg
This legal document analyzes the application of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) by referencing the 1953 Supreme Court case *Bridges v. U.S.* It details how Bridges was charged for a false statement regarding Communist Party membership in his 1945 naturalization application and how the Supreme Court interpreted the WSLA's scope. The document criticizes a District Court for mischaracterizing the *Bridges* opinion concerning the WSLA's legislative history and the nature of fraud.
DOJ-OGR-00021107.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, arguing for a 'categorical approach' to interpreting statutes of limitation, specifically §3283. It cites several Supreme Court precedents, most notably U.S. v. Noveck (1926), to support the argument that an extended statute of limitations for fraud-related offenses only applies when fraud is an essential element of the crime itself, not when it is merely alleged as 'mere surplusage' in an indictment for a different crime like perjury or tax evasion.
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-00021075.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal appellate brief filed on February 28, 2023, arguing that all counts against Ghislaine Maxwell should be dismissed based on the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein. It claims the NPA immunized Maxwell as a 'potential co-conspirator' and cites Supreme Court precedent requiring prosecutors to fulfill plea agreement promises. Additionally, the text argues jury prejudice occurred due to media interviews given by accusers named Carolyn and Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00020955.jpg
This legal document excerpt discusses the standards for setting aside a jury verdict and granting a new trial, particularly focusing on juror nondisclosure during voir dire examination. It cites several Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases, establishing that such motions are disfavored and require a high burden of proof, specifically demonstrating a juror's dishonest answer to a material question that would have led to a challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00020787.jpg
This document is page 28 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The court denies Maxwell's motion to dismiss multiplicitous counts without prejudice and addresses discovery disputes, specifically accepting the Government's representation that it has already disclosed all required Brady and Giglio material. The court orders the parties to negotiate a schedule for any remaining pretrial disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00020776.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss an indictment based on pre-indictment delay. Maxwell argues the delay prejudiced her defense because potential witnesses, including Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, have died. The court rejects this argument, finding no evidence of improper government purpose for the delay and concluding that Maxwell's claims about what deceased witnesses might have testified are too speculative to meet the high standard required for dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00020775.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes whether a statute can be retroactively applied to prosecute the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that applying the PROTECT Act does not have impermissible retroactive effects because it did not deprive Maxwell of any vested rights, as the original statute of limitations had not expired when the Act was passed. The document also dismisses Maxwell's fairness argument as a policy disagreement with Congress and affirms that the government's delay in bringing charges did not violate due process, citing the statute of limitations as the primary safeguard against stale charges.
DOJ-OGR-00020774.jpg
This legal document argues that the PROTECT Act's statute of limitations applies to Maxwell's past conduct. It counters Maxwell's argument by explaining that Congress removed an express retroactivity provision from the bill due to constitutional concerns raised by figures like Senator Leahy, not to prevent its application to cases where the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
DOJ-OGR-00020772.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order (filed April 16, 2021) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's rejection of Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations, specifically concerning the 2003 PROTECT Act and retroactive application of laws to past conduct. The legal analysis relies on precedents such as 'Weingarten' and 'Landgraf'.
DOJ-OGR-00020771.jpg
This legal document analyzes the application of the § 3283 statute of limitations, particularly in cases involving child sex abuse and war frauds. It examines arguments made by 'Maxwell' and contrasts interpretations from Supreme Court cases like *Bridges v. United States* with those from the Second Circuit in *Weingarten* and the PROTECT Act. The document concludes that the legislative history and plain meaning of the statute support a broader application rather than a narrow one.
DOJ-OGR-00020769.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in a criminal case against an individual named Maxwell. The court analyzes and ultimately rejects Maxwell's argument that a 'categorical approach' should be used to interpret the statutes related to the charges. The court relies on precedent from the Second and Third Circuits, particularly the reasoning in *Weingarten v. United States*, to conclude that the categorical approach is not applicable in this context.
DOJ-OGR-00002328.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text argues that the jury selection process in White Plains systematically underrepresented Black and Hispanic individuals, thereby violating Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a fair cross-section. The argument relies on the three-part test established by the Supreme Court in Duren v. Missouri to demonstrate a prima facie violation.
DOJ-OGR-00002328(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, is a portion of a legal argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It contends that her Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals in the jury selected from White Plains. The document cites the three-part test established by the Supreme Court in *Duren v. Missouri* to support the claim of a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement.
DOJ-OGR-00002147.jpg
This legal analysis, authored by William Julié, discusses the factors making it highly likely that the French government would extradite Ms Ghislaine Maxwell to the United States. It considers the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, Ms Maxwell's dual American and French nationalities, her ties to the USA, and the unlikelihood of France prosecuting her for crimes committed in the USA, especially if she fled France in violation of bail.
DOJ-OGR-00002124.jpg
This is page 29 of a legal document filed on December 14, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The text explains the legal process for when a court decision becomes final, distinguishing between scenarios with and without an appeal to the Supreme Court, citing the Extradition Act 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002123.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 14, 2020. It presents a table outlining the strict timelines and procedures for various stages of an extradition appeal process, including lodging applications to the High Court and Supreme Court, and the final removal. The procedures and deadlines are based on specific sections of the Extradition Act 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002115.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Document 97-21) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (indicated by case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It details the 'Practical Experience' of a legal expert named Mr. Perry, specifically focusing on his history with high-profile extradition cases involving the US, UK, and Russia. The document lists specific case citations where Mr. Perry represented various parties, including the US Government, the Governor of the Cayman Islands, and individual defendants resisting extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00002114.jpg
This document is the Curriculum Vitae of David Perry QC, a prominent UK barrister specializing in extradition law. It outlines his extensive career, including roles as Treasury Counsel and a judge, and highlights his expertise in extradition matters. A key event detailed is his co-authorship of a major 2011 independent review for the UK Home Office on the nation's extradition arrangements, which concluded that the 2003 UK-US treaty was fair and did not need renegotiation.
DOJ-OGR-00002101.jpg
This document is page 6 of 29 from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 14, 2020. It outlines the legal framework and procedural hurdles for appealing extradition in the United Kingdom under the Extradition Act 2003, noting the specific roles of the Secretary of State, High Court, and Supreme Court. The text emphasizes the rarity of successful appeals to the Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights in extradition cases.
DOJ-OGR-00002006.jpg
This document is page 34 of a legal filing from December 14, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It details expert opinions from Mr. Perry (UK law) and William Julié (French law), both arguing that Maxwell would be unable to resist extradition to the US from either the UK or France, and would be unlikely to receive bail in the UK if she absconded there. These arguments appear designed to support a request for bail in the US by minimizing her flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001942.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, dated December 10, 2020, where a lawyer is arguing before a judge ('your Honor') regarding a client who has been in custody. The arguments involve the application of legal factors (3142 factors), guidance from the Second Circuit and Supreme Court, and the historical context of the alleged conduct. The judge ('THE COURT') interrupts Mr. Cohen to ask for clarification on a point.
DOJ-OGR-00001924.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An attorney is arguing for their client's pretrial release, citing precedent from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to assert that the burden of proof lies with the government to demonstrate the client is a flight risk. The attorney criticizes the government for not meeting this burden and introduces a prepared bail package for the judge's consideration.
DOJ-OGR-00001826.jpg
This document discusses a legal appeal by 'Maxwell' concerning the denial of her motion to modify a protective order and her request for a writ of mandamus to the District Court. The court declines to exercise jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal, also denying her request for a writ of mandamus and her motions to consolidate her criminal appeal with a civil appeal involving Guiffre v. Maxwell, citing lack of common identity between the appeals.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity