Loretta Preska
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Civil matter of Virginia Giuffre v. Alan Dershowitz pending before Hon. Loretta Preska. | Southern District of New York | View |
EFTA00029844.pdf
Defense counsel Laura Menninger objects to government redactions in the case US v. Maxwell. Menninger argues that 'Accuser-2's' diary entries are not confidential as they were shared on a NY Times podcast and do not implicate Maxwell. The letter also argues against redacting information about another accuser (name redacted) who has publicized her allegations via Netflix and podcasts, referencing the 'Kramer notes', and discusses sealing issues related to Maxwell's deposition in a separate civil case ruled on by Judge Preska.
DOJ-OGR-00019430.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is being treated unfairly because she is barred from sharing information sealed under a criminal protective order with judicial officers in her civil unsealing proceedings (presided over by Judge Preska). The brief asserts that the district court erred and abused its discretion by declining to modify the protective order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).
DOJ-OGR-00019411.jpg
This is page 12 of 58 from a court filing dated September 24, 2020 (Case 20-3061). The document is heavily redacted, with only a single sentence fragment visible at the bottom stating that Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Preska to briefly stay something (likely a court order or proceeding). The document bears a DOJ-OGR Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00019295.jpg
This document is page 8 (filed as Page 9 of 15 in Document 17) of a legal filing dated September 10, 2020. It argues for the consolidation of two appeals involving Ghislaine Maxwell: one regarding the unsealing of deposition material in her civil case (Judge Preska) and another regarding a protective order in her criminal case (Judge Nathan). The text asserts that consolidation is required for efficiency and fairness.
DOJ-OGR-00019659.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that releasing deposition material prematurely would compromise her ability to make a 'Martindell argument' and discusses her intent to move Judge Preska to stay unsealing pending her criminal case. The text highlights a conflict where Maxwell claims she cannot fairly argue her case because Judge Preska and the appellate panel are unaware of redacted facts regarding government proceedings and subpoenas.
DOJ-OGR-00019651.jpg
This document is page 2 (labeled Page 5 of 23 in header) of a legal brief filed on October 8, 2020, in Case 20-3061 involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's stance on Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights and civil protective order, specifically criticizing the government for claiming Maxwell failed to articulate why Judge Preska needs certain information (which is redacted). The document also begins a section on 'Jurisdiction,' outlining the three conditions for interlocutory review under the collateral order doctrine, citing 'Will v. Hallock'.
DOJ-OGR-00010658.jpg
This is a letter dated June 16, 2022, from Alan Dershowitz's attorneys to the U.S. prosecutors in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The attorneys inform the prosecution about a recent, confidential deposition of Virginia Giuffre from her civil lawsuit against Dershowitz, arguing it contains information critical to her credibility. They urge the prosecutors to obtain and review this deposition transcript before allowing Giuffre to provide a victim impact statement at Maxwell's upcoming sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00003055.jpg
This document is a page from a Government legal filing in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing that certain evidence (depositions from April and July 2016) would have been 'inevitably discovered' regardless of protective order modifications. A significant footnote details Judge Preska's refusal in the related civil case to keep Maxwell's testimony sealed, specifically highlighting testimony where Maxwell denied giving massages to Jeffrey Epstein or 'Minor Victim-2,' which forms the basis of perjury charges (Count Six).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity