Minpeco S.A.
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987-01-01 | Legal proceeding | In Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), ... | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001769.jpg
This document is a Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Dated September 3, 2020, it formally notifies the court of her intent to appeal the district court's September 2, 2020 decision, which denied her motion to modify a protective order. The appeal is directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00001764.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 24, 2020, filed in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues against the government's characterization of Maxwell's actions as 'cherry-picking' and challenges the government's issuance of subpoenas as not being 'standard practice,' citing Second Circuit case law (Martindell) regarding protective orders and civil discovery. Large portions of the document are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019626.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, in case 20-3061 (Maxwell appeal). The text argues that Maxwell's appeal regarding pretrial discovery materials does not meet the strict requirements of the collateral order doctrine established by the Supreme Court. The Government distinguishes Maxwell's situation from cases she cited (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs.), noting those involved intervenors in civil cases rather than parties in criminal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal brief (Case 20-3061) filed on September 28, 2020, arguing that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a district court's decision regarding a protective order in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text focuses on the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites legal precedents to support the claim that the unsealing order can be appealed immediately without waiting for the criminal trial to conclude. It mentions Ms. Maxwell's intention to stay the unsealing process.
DOJ-OGR-00019580.jpg
This document is a Notice of Appeal filed on September 3, 2020, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell is appealing the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's decision from September 2, 2020, which denied her motion to modify a protective order. The notice cites several legal precedents to argue that the denial is immediately appealable.
DOJ-OGR-00019414.jpg
This document is a jurisdictional statement from a legal filing, arguing that the court has the authority to review a district court's decision not to modify a protective order. It asserts this jurisdiction under the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites several legal precedents to support its claim. The document outlines the three requirements for an interlocutory order to be immediately appealable under this doctrine.
DOJ-OGR-00019384.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from September 16, 2020, argues that legal precedents cited by an individual named Maxwell are inapplicable to the current case. The author contends that the cited cases (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., and Brown v. Maxwell) are distinct because they all involve appeals by non-party intervenors seeking to modify protective orders, unlike the situation in the author's case. The document details these examples to demonstrate why appellate jurisdiction was appropriate in those specific instances but not in the present one.
DOJ-OGR-00019361.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal brief filed on September 16, 2020, likely by the prosecution or a respondent opposing an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the cases Maxwell cited in her notice of appeal are irrelevant ('inapposite') because they deal with third-party intervenors (like the press or the CFTC) seeking to modify protective orders, whereas Maxwell is a direct party to the case. It specifically distinguishes the current situation from *Brown v. Maxwell* and other precedents regarding appellate jurisdiction over protective orders.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity