US Court of Appeals
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
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-00019789.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings from late December 2020 to mid-January 2021. Key events include the denial of Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail due to flight risk, the listing of specific criminal charges against her (including sex trafficking and perjury), and subsequent procedural motions regarding filing deadlines and a Notice of Appeal. The document records Judge Alison J. Nathan's orders denying bail and denying an extension of time to file an appeal notice.
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-00019763.jpg
This document is a page from a federal court docket sheet (Case 21-58) outlining proceedings in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell between late December 2020 and January 2021. Key events include Judge Alison Nathan denying Maxwell's renewed motion for bail on the grounds that she remains a flight risk, the listing of specific federal charges against her (sex trafficking and perjury), and the subsequent filing of a Notice of Appeal by the defense. The document also records procedural motions regarding extensions of time and the sealing of specific documents.
DOJ-OGR-00019734.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from late December 2020 to mid-January 2021. Key events include the denial of a renewed motion for release on bail, subsequent letter motions regarding extensions of time, and the filing of a Notice of Appeal by the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00019728.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-58) covering filings between September 8, 2020, and November 5, 2020. It details the transmission of appeal notices, the placement of sealed documents in a vault, the appearance of attorney Bobbi Sternheim, and a series of letters between the Prosecution (AUSAs Comey, Moe, Pomerantz) and Defense (Everdell, Pagliuca) regarding disclosure delays and investigative files. The log concludes with Judge Nathan issuing an order confirming the government's Brady disclosure obligations pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act.
DOJ-OGR-00019711.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet (Case 21-58) detailing proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell between late December 2020 and January 12, 2021. It records Judge Nathan's denial of Maxwell's renewed motion for bail on the grounds that she remains a flight risk, the filing of sealed documents, and the subsequent denial of a request to extend the time to file an appeal. The log concludes with Maxwell filing a Notice of Appeal and the transmission of the case to the US Court of Appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00009451.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal memorandum or expert report (filed as part of court proceedings in 2012 and re-filed in 2022) analyzing the ethical obligations of defense lawyers. It cites case law regarding the 'adversary system' and specifically questions whether lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard LLP violated ethical duties by failing to disclose information prior to a letter sent to the Court on July 21, 2011. The text discusses the balance between client confidentiality and the duty of candor to the tribunal.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity