Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Lugosch
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case cited: Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020450.jpg
This document is a log of court filings from November 19, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The entries detail orders and a memorandum opinion concerning evidentiary motions, specifically the admissibility of Government Exhibit 52 and the testimony of a witness referred to as 'Accuser-3' and 'Witness-3'. The court is ruling on what testimony from this witness regarding her relationship with Maxwell and Mr. Epstein will be permissible, setting deadlines for the parties to propose redactions to court documents.
DOJ-OGR-00020435.jpg
This document is a court docket from the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from October 20-22, 2021. It records efforts by media organizations, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, to oppose the sealing of jury selection materials, ensuring public access. The central entry is a detailed order by Judge Alison J. Nathan denying the request to seal the materials and outlining the specific procedures and a comprehensive schedule for the upcoming jury selection process, including questionnaires, voir dire, and deadlines for counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00020404.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from Case 22-1426, detailing legal filings and orders from December 2020 related to defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries primarily concern Maxwell's renewed application for bail, the government's opposition, and the court's orders regarding the redaction of documents filed under seal. The orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan apply legal tests from cases like Lugosch v. Pyramid and United States v. Amodeo to balance the public's right of access with the privacy interests of third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00002344(1).jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on February 4, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order rules on the defendant's pre-trial motions concerning the redaction of sensitive information, adopting most of the proposed redactions from both the defendant and the government. The Court's decision is based on a three-part legal test established by the Second Circuit for balancing the presumption of public access against competing considerations.
DOJ-OGR-00002204.jpg
This is a court order issued by District Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 23, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order grants the Defendant's request to file certain materials related to her bail application with redactions, as the Government did not oppose them. The Court found that the proposed redactions satisfy the legal test for balancing the public's right to access against privacy interests and judicial efficiency.
DOJ-OGR-00001970.jpg
This document is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on December 14, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order grants Maxwell's request to file her renewed bail application with redactions, as the government did not oppose it. The Court finds that the redactions are justified under the three-part test established in the Second Circuit case *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga*, determining that the motions are judicial documents and that privacy interests outweigh the presumption of public access in this instance.
DOJ-OGR-00019362.jpg
This legal document argues that an appeal by Maxwell should be dismissed because the order in question is not subject to interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. It further argues that Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal case appeal with a separate civil case appeal (Giuffre v. Maxwell) should be denied because the two cases are factually and legally distinct, and the Government has no involvement or interest in the civil matter.
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-00009005.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 613) from 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 (cases) cited in the main document, ranging from 1933 to 2022. Notably, it cites 'Brown v. Maxwell' (2019), a case directly involving the defendant.
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-00008995.jpg
This document is a court order filed on February 24, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number and context). The order mandates 'Juror 50' to appear in person on March 8, 2022, to testify under oath regarding specific issues, likely related to juror misconduct allegations. It also establishes deadlines for the prosecution and defense to submit proposed questions for the juror and to request redactions for a sealed Opinion & Order.
DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg
This legal document, dated February 11, 2022, is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court denies Juror 50's motion to intervene and also denies the Defendant's request to seal that motion, citing the public's right to access judicial documents. The document then details the Court's analysis of a separate request from the Defendant to temporarily seal documents related to a motion for a new trial, outlining the three-part legal test from the Second Circuit used to evaluate such requests.
DOJ-OGR-00019794.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, covering March 22-24, 2021. Key events include Judge Alison J. Nathan denying Maxwell's third motion for bail and Maxwell subsequently filing a Notice of Appeal. Additionally, a significant order was issued regarding a defense subpoena directed at a law firm representing alleged victims, setting protocols for victim notification and filing objections to the subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00019787.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from a legal case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, dated March 24, 2021, detailing court filings from December 10 to December 18, 2020. The entries primarily concern the filing of a conference transcript, Maxwell's renewed application for bail, and the court's orders regarding the redaction of sensitive information from these filings. The court, citing precedents like Lugosch and Amodeo, granted Maxwell's proposed redactions to protect the privacy interests of individuals mentioned in the bail application materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019768.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from March 2021 detailing proceedings in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include Judge Alison J. Nathan denying Maxwell's third motion for bail and issuing an order regarding the defense's attempt to subpoena a law firm representing alleged victims. Maxwell subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the bail denial.
DOJ-OGR-00019733.jpg
This document is a docket summary from a legal case involving defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 12, 2021. It details a series of court filings and orders from December 2020 concerning Maxwell's renewed motion for bail and the redaction of related documents. The court applies a three-part test from the Second Circuit case *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga* to approve proposed redactions from both the defense and the government, ultimately culminating in a December 28, 2020 order denying Maxwell's motion for release on bail.
DOJ-OGR-00019709.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from a legal case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 12, 2021. It logs court activities from December 10 to December 18, 2020, including the filing of a conference transcript, orders regarding Maxwell's renewed application for bail, and the court's decision to allow redactions based on established legal tests. The entries also note the filing of a letter and memorandum by Maxwell's counsel and a notice of appearance by an attorney for the USA.
DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to seal a motion for a new trial, which was based on a juror's alleged failure to properly answer a questionnaire. The author asserts the public's common law right of access to judicial documents, citing legal precedents like 'Amodeo' and 'Lugosch' to argue that the defendant has not met the high standard for secrecy. The document suggests that limited redactions, rather than a complete seal, would be a more appropriate course of action.
DOJ-OGR-00010747.jpg
This is a court order dated June 24, 2022, from Judge Alison J. Nathan in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order denies the Defendant's request to redact seven written witness statements, citing the presumption of public access and the fact that the witnesses themselves did not seek to file their statements under seal. The Court directs the Government to docket the statements without redactions and affirms that witnesses Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre may present in-person statements at the future sentencing hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00010661.jpg
This document is page 2 of a government filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 24, 2022. The Government argues that victims have a right to be heard at sentencing and opposes the defendant's request to redact victim impact statements, citing that privacy interests belong to the victims, not the defendant. The filing cites legal precedents (Eberhard, Lugosch) regarding the Court's discretion to accept information and the standards for sealing documents.
DOJ-OGR-00009846.jpg
This legal document argues against the defendant's position that Juror 50's motion to intervene should be sealed. The author asserts that the motion is a judicial document that should be publicly docketed, citing the case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and refuting the defendant's claims that it is merely a discovery request or that public filing would interfere with testimony. A footnote defends the Government's prior action of publicly filing a letter about Juror 50's public statements, stating it was appropriate and that an attempt was made to confer with defense counsel beforehand.
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-00004791.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Document 307 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated when the Government used her civil deposition testimony in her criminal trial. The text asserts that civil protective orders do not prevent testimony from being used in subsequent criminal proceedings and that Maxwell was free to plead the Fifth during the original civil case but chose not to. It also addresses an argument regarding the law firm BSF turning over transcripts.
DOJ-OGR-00004780.jpg
This is a court order issued on June 25, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order denies Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence and further orders the unsealing of documents from a related civil case, Giuffre v. Maxwell, including a memorandum and transcripts from hearings in March and April 2019. The parties are given a short timeframe to confer and propose redactions to these documents before they are made public.
DOJ-OGR-00002764.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from March 18, 2021, addressing disputes over redactions in the Government's brief for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The Court evaluates the Defendant's objections and the Government's requests by balancing third-party privacy interests against the public's right to access, citing precedents like 'United States v. Amodeo'. The Court ultimately justifies some redactions based on privacy concerns while agreeing with the Defendant's objections to others.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity