Lighte
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00020780.jpg
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated April 16, 2021, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss perjury charges. The Court denied the motion, stating that the charges are legally tenable and that arguments regarding the ambiguity of questions asked during her civil deposition are matters for a jury to decide. The document cites several legal precedents (Lighte, Wolfson) regarding perjury and 'knowing falsity'.
DOJ-OGR-00002412.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, a federal statute (18 U.S.C. ยง 1623), and various Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure that are cited as legal precedent within the associated court document. The cases listed involve parties such as Giuffre, Dershowitz, Maxwell, and the United States government.
DOJ-OGR-00003094.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss perjury charges. The prosecution contends that the defendant understood the plain meaning of questions asked during a July 2016 deposition regarding her relationship with Epstein and her knowledge of his activities, and that her answers were knowingly false. The document cites specific deposition questions and answers, including one about massages, as evidence that a jury should be allowed to determine the truthfulness of her statements.
DOJ-OGR-00003082.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law, discussing the legal standards for perjury. The author argues against dismissing a perjury count before trial based on 'fundamental ambiguity,' citing numerous court cases to establish that such challenges are typically evaluated after a trial. The text distinguishes between answers that are literally true but misleading (which may not be perjury) and answers that are outright false, regardless of responsiveness (which can be perjury).
DOJ-OGR-00003081.jpg
This document is page 147 of a court filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It contains legal analysis regarding perjury charges, specifically discussing the legal standard for 'fundamental ambiguity' in questioning. The text cites various precedents to argue that a perjury count stands unless a question is so ambiguous that people of ordinary intellect cannot agree on its meaning, noting that simple amenability to multiple meanings is not a sufficient defense.
DOJ-OGR-00003080.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, dated April 16, 2021, concerning a defendant's motion to dismiss two counts of perjury. The charges stem from depositions in April and July 2016, where the defendant was ordered to answer questions about her involvement with Epstein and Giuffre in a prior defamation case. The document outlines the court's previous orders and introduces the applicable law for perjury, citing legal standards for determining if a statement is knowingly false.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity