Onondaga
LocationRelationship Network
EFTA00032964.pdf
This document is a New York Law360 email newsletter dated October 10, 2018, summarizing various legal news stories, court rulings, and job openings. It includes headlines about lawsuits involving Harvard and NYU law reviews, a suicide of a former Goldman Sachs aide, and various commercial litigation cases. The document mentions 'Epstein' only in the context of a job listing for the law firm 'Epstein Becker & Green, PC'; there is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein or his associates.
DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing dated August 21, 2020, addressed to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The author, presumably the Government, argues for keeping grand jury-related exhibits under seal by citing historical precedent for grand jury secrecy and analyzing the First Amendment's presumptive right of public access. The filing references multiple court cases to support the position that sealing is justified and necessary to protect higher values, even when a presumptive right of access applies.
DOJ-OGR-00020971.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 1, 2022, discusses the jury selection process in a criminal case. It details how the Defendant chose not to challenge for cause two prospective jurors, Juror A and Juror B, despite their disclosures of personal experiences related to sexual abuse. The document contrasts their situations with that of another juror, Juror 50, and notes that all affirmed their ability to remain fair and impartial.
DOJ-OGR-00020658.jpg
This document is a court docket log (SDNY CM/ECF) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings between April 22 and April 23, 2021. It details procedural exchanges regarding electronic devices in the courtroom (denied), suppression motions, adjournment requests, and proposed redactions to protect third-party privacy (granted). The document lists key legal teams for both the defense (Boies Schiller Flexner) and the prosecution (AUSAs Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, Rohrbach), and includes Judge Alison J. Nathan's rulings on these procedural matters.
DOJ-OGR-00020550.jpg
This document is a court docket from Case 22-1426, detailing legal proceedings in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell from November 15 to November 19, 2021. The entries primarily concern the jury selection process (Voir Dire), which was held over several days before Judge Alison J. Nathan. The docket also records several orders from the judge, including one restricting courtroom sketch artists and others dealing with motions to quash subpoenas and add individuals to the case docket.
DOJ-OGR-00020436.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 22-1426) listing entries from late October 2021 regarding the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries detail various orders and letters concerning jury selection, questionnaires, voir dire procedures, and scheduling for motions in limine and jury charges. It documents communications between the defense (Maxwell's counsel) and the prosecution (USA) addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan.
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-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-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-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-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-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-00002800.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 24, 2021, is a court order outlining the procedure for a law firm representing alleged victims to object to a proposed subpoena. The Court acknowledges receipt of a letter from the firm on March 19, 2021, and sets a deadline of March 26, 2021, for the firm to formally file its objections. The order mandates that the law firm must first confer with defense counsel to potentially narrow the issues and discuss redactions, citing legal precedents for these procedures.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity