Brown
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Craven
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Gilchrist
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Government Exhibit 22
|
Subject of testimony |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ROHRBACH
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
DMV/DL (Department of Motor Vehicles/Driver's License)
|
Employee |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal case | Civil case cited as 'Brown v. Maxwell', where the Court released summary judgment material. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Brown regarding the New York State DMV 'compass database' and the a... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of witness Brown in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Court (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony authenticating Government Exhibit 21 | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Brown regarding the procedures of the Department of Motor V... | Courtroom or legal proceeding | View |
| 2021-01-11 | Legal decision | Certiorari denied for United States v. Brown, 800 F. App’x 455 (9th Cir. 2020). | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal proceeding | In Brown v. Maxwell, third-party intervenors, including members of the press, appealed an order d... | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) is cited as a reference for the nature o... | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019) is cited. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal ruling | A ruling was made in the case of Brown v. Maxwell. | Second Circuit | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case cited: Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019). | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-16 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Brown, 2008 WL 161146. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2002-04-26 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Brown, 2002 WL 34244994. | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
| 2002-04-26 | Legal case decision | Decision in the case of U.S. v. Brown. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 1990-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Brown, 744 F. Supp. 558. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 1981-01-01 | Legal case | The Second Circuit declined to follow a Ninth Circuit precedent in the case United States v. Brown. | Second Circuit | View |
| 1981-01-01 | Court case | United States v. Brown, where the Second Circuit declined to follow Ninth Circuit precedent and r... | Second Circuit | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002281(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities page (Page 3 of 19) from a court filing dated January 25, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists twenty-one legal precedents (cases) cited in the brief, primarily from the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit, covering dates from 1964 to 2011. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002281.
DOJ-OGR-00021842.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that critiques the reasoning of a prior court decision, 'Annabi'. The author argues that 'Annabi' departed from the established legal doctrine that a plea agreement with a specific U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) only binds that office, not the entire U.S. government, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text cites numerous other cases in its footnotes to support this traditional, more limited interpretation of such agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00021684.jpg
Page 24 (PDF page 37) of a legal brief in Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell appeal). The text argues against Maxwell's claim that Eleventh Circuit law should apply to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), asserting that the court should follow its own precedents (Annabi) and that the governing law is that of the forum state. It cites multiple cases to support the application of local circuit law over the law where a plea agreement was originally negotiated.
DOJ-OGR-00021654.jpg
This document appears to be page 'vi' (Table of Authorities) from a legal filing, specifically Case 22-1426 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), filed on June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents involving the United States government against various defendants (Annabi, Archer, Ashraf, etc.) primarily in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The document serves as an index for case law citations found later in the full brief.
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-00019416.jpg
This page from a legal brief (filed Sept 24, 2020) argues against the government's stance that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The text discusses the 'collateral order doctrine' in criminal cases, citing precedents like Midland Asphalt Corp. and Flanagan, and asserts that Maxwell simply seeks permission to share facts under seal with another judge. A footnote references the Miami Herald's involvement in the related civil case Brown v. Maxwell.
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-00019408.jpg
This page from a legal filing, dated September 24, 2020, discusses procedural history regarding the unsealing of documents in the Brown v. Maxwell case. It references specific denied motions by Alan Dershowitz and Michael Cernovich to modify a protective order, as well as a denied request by the Miami Herald to unseal the docket. The top half of the page is heavily redacted.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00019276.jpg
This legal document is an 'Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance' filed on September 10, 2020, by attorney Laura A. Menninger of the firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. Menninger formally enters her appearance as lead counsel for the defendant-appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Docket No. 20-3061). The filing confirms the accuracy of case details, provides counsel's contact information, lists related cases, and certifies Menninger's admission to practice before the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009146.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against a finding of implied bias for 'Juror 50'. It outlines the Second Circuit's established 'narrow' view on the matter, citing multiple precedents where the court refused to presume bias based on occupational relationships or personal experiences without a showing of actual prejudice. The document asserts that the current circumstances involving Juror 50 do not meet the high threshold for mandatory disqualification set by the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00009063.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 24, 2022, arguing against the public release of pleadings from 'Juror No. 50'. The argument cites legal precedents, primarily Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, to outline the three-step process for determining public access to judicial documents. The author contends that releasing the documents would be prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial and that there is no compelling reason for their release.
DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal memorandum dated January 13, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues that pleadings filed by 'Juror 50' do not meet the legal standard for 'judicial documents' and therefore should not be subject to public access. The argument relies on precedent from Second Circuit cases, including United States v. Amodeo and Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, and notes that Ms. Maxwell intends to move to strike the pleadings, which would further support their exclusion from public view.
DOJ-OGR-00008989.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that the Court possesses the authority to release the sealed Jury Questionnaire and voir dire testimony of Juror 50. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that such a release is permissible but is subject to a balancing test, weighing public access against juror privacy, security, and potential harassment. The document emphasizes that any limitations on access to these materials must be narrowly defined and justified by a demonstrated need.
DOJ-OGR-00008982.jpg
This document is page 3 of 13 from a legal filing (Document 609) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law). The cases cited largely pertain to press access, public trials, and the sealing of judicial documents (e.g., Associated Press, Press-Enterprise Co.), suggesting the filing relates to transparency issues or the unsealing of evidence in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008914.jpg
This legal document is a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 11, 2022. The Court denies two separate requests: first, it denies Juror 50's motion to intervene in the criminal case, and second, it denies the Defendant's requests to either strike or seal Juror 50's motion. The Court's reasoning relies on legal precedent, stating that motions to strike are disfavored and that Juror 50's motion qualifies as a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access.
DOJ-OGR-00013608.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of Supervisory Investigator Brown by attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibits 21 and 22. The court admits Exhibit 21 under seal to protect witness identities, and Brown testifies that Exhibit 22 is a DMV image capture of the same person, stored in a photosystem database.
DOJ-OGR-00013607.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brown. The witness identifies Government Exhibit 21 as a fair and accurate report from the New York State DMV's 'compass database,' which they state is used to store records of ID cards and driver's licenses in the ordinary course of business. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, is noted as offering the exhibit on behalf of the government.
DOJ-OGR-00013606.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brown, who works as a supervisor/investigator. Brown describes the process for obtaining an identification card from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), including the required application steps, personal information, and the types of original documents (e.g., social security card, passport) that must be presented for verification.
DOJ-OGR-00009825.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against excusing 'Juror 50' for implied bias. It heavily cites Second Circuit precedent, which maintains a 'narrow' view on the matter, requiring more than just similar personal experiences or occupational relationships to presume bias. The document asserts that the circumstances of Juror 50 do not meet the high threshold for mandatory disqualification established by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009696.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal document filed on March 11, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It lists numerous legal cases, with decision dates ranging from 1933 to 2022, which are cited as legal precedent in the main filing. Each entry includes the case name, citation, and the page number(s) where it is referenced in the document.
DOJ-OGR-00003106.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a defendant's motion. The prosecution asserts that the defendant's false statements, made in a civil deposition, were intended to obstruct a criminal investigation by the FBI and a grand jury, and are therefore connected to the substantive offenses. The argument cites several legal precedents to support the claim that the charges should not be severed.
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) is only binding within that specific district. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the use of terms like "United States" implies the agreement binds the entire U.S. Government, citing several legal precedents, including cases from the Second Circuit, to support the position that such agreements are geographically limited unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Process for obtaining an identification card from the Dep...
A witness named Brown, a supervisor/investigator, is questioned about the procedures for getting a DMV identification card. Brown explains that applicants must visit a DMV office, fill out an application, provide original documents (like social security cards, passports, or birth certificates), and have their photograph taken. The DMV verifies the information by checking the security features of the original documents.
Direct Examination Testimony
Testimony regarding the verification process for obtaining identification cards at the DMV.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity