JSR
PersonRelationship Network
037.pdf
This document is a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on August 8, 2023, in the JP Morgan Chase & Co. Derivative Litigation. Attorney Christopher J. Orrico of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. requests permission to represent the plaintiff, Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund, in the Southern District of New York. The attorney attests to his good standing in New York and Connecticut.
037-01.pdf
This document is a declaration filed on August 8, 2023, by attorney Christopher J. Orrico of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. requesting admission pro hac vice in the JP Morgan Chase & Co. Derivative Litigation (Case No. 1:23-CV-03903). Orrico attests to his good standing in New York and Connecticut and confirms he has no criminal or disciplinary record. He represents the Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund in this matter.
026.pdf
This document is a legal declaration filed on July 6, 2023, by attorney Audra J. Soloway of Paul, Weiss in the Southern District of New York. It supports a Motion to Dismiss in a derivative litigation case against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its board members (including James Dimon). The declaration serves to authenticate two exhibits: a 2014 Deferred Prosecution Agreement and the company's 2006 Restated Certificate of Incorporation.
EFTA00037099.pdf
This document is page 21 of 23 from a legal filing (Document 256) in Case 1:22-cv-10019-JSR (Doe v. Deutsche Bank), filed on November 2, 2023. It argues that an objector, Ms. [REDACTED], failed to credibly allege conflicts of interest regarding the Claims Administrator and notes she did not opt out of the settlement despite receiving notice. The image appears to be a screenshot of the PDF being viewed within a ProtonMail browser interface.
DOJ-OGR-00000927.jpg
This document appears to be page 15 (internal numbering) of a legal brief filed on April 1, 2021, in Case 21-770 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). The text presents legal arguments against pre-trial detention, citing precedents such as *United States v. Stephens* and *United States v. Weigand* to argue that the COVID-19 pandemic creates obstacles to defense preparation that justify release. It specifically references a case where a 'wealthy defendant' deemed a flight risk was released due to the pandemic.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity