Ghailani
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Ghailani, 751 F. Supp. 2d 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) | S.D.N.Y. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001789.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 7, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The text outlines legal precedents determining the scope of the 'prosecution team' for discovery purposes (Rule 16 and Brady), arguing that the prosecution is not obligated to produce records from other government agencies (like the SEC or components of the DOJ/FBI) unless a specific 'joint investigation' occurred. It cites various cases (Middendorf, Collins, Stein) to establish the criteria for what constitutes a joint investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00022085.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a brief or motion, dated April 24, 2020. It argues that the involvement of agents from a government agency in an investigation does not automatically make the entire agency part of the "prosecution team" for discovery purposes. The text cites several legal precedents (Stein, Pelullo, Locascio, Ghailani, and Middendorf) to outline the factors courts use to determine the scope of the prosecution team and its disclosure obligations under Rule 16.
DOJ-OGR-00022066.jpg
This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (which corresponds to USA v. Parnas et al., though released in a DOJ OGR batch). It lists numerous legal precedents (case law citations) primarily from the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, referencing cases such as U.S. v. Coppa, U.S. v. Ghailani, and others used to support legal arguments in the main brief.
DOJ-OGR-00003067.jpg
This document is page 133 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It presents legal arguments and case law precedents regarding government misconduct, specifically the high burden required to prove 'outrageous' government conduct that would warrant dismissal of an indictment. The text argues that relief is only appropriate if the misconduct prejudiced the defense, and that suppression of evidence is the standard remedy rather than dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00002949.jpg
This document is page 15 of 239 from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing various United States court cases from 'Falso' to 'Gracesqui' along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity