Martindell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Professional |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Deposition testimony given by the defendant under a protective order. | N/A | View |
| 2021-02-04 | Court filing | Filing of MOTION to Suppress Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment All ... | SDNY | View |
| 2021-02-04 | Court filing | Filing of MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re MOTION to Suppress Under the Fourth Amend... | SDNY | View |
| 1979-01-01 | Legal case | Martindell v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020655.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from the SDNY court case regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings from April 16 to April 19, 2021. It details various motions to dismiss and suppress evidence filed by Maxwell's defense team, orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan setting an arraignment date for April 23, 2021, and procedural orders regarding the severance of perjury counts and the handling of redacted documents. The document highlights the legal maneuvering regarding the S2 Superseding Indictment and disputes over evidence obtained via subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00020646.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) detailing a series of motions and supporting memorandums filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell on February 4, 2021. The filings, entered by her attorneys Jeffrey Pagliuca and Mark Cohen, seek to dismiss various counts of the superseding indictment, suppress evidence, and strike surplusage from the indictment. The legal grounds for these motions include due process violations, pre-indictment delay, breach of a non-prosecution agreement, and claims that charges are time-barred.
DOJ-OGR-00020515.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, listing entries from April 15 and April 16, 2021. It details a motion to continue the trial date, an order regarding redactions of documents, a government memorandum opposing various defense motions to dismiss or suppress evidence, and an order regarding the filing of reply briefs and redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00020426.jpg
This document is a court docket log from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from May 17 to May 25, 2021. The entries primarily concern pre-trial motions filed by Maxwell's defense team, including motions to suppress evidence, strike surplusage, and dismiss the superseding indictment. The log also records correspondence with Judge Alison J. Nathan from both the defense and the prosecution (USA) regarding document redactions and scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00002350.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 from various U.S. courts, including District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and cover a range of civil and criminal matters.
DOJ-OGR-00002350(1).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 court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the larger document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and involve various individuals and corporate entities.
DOJ-OGR-00019603.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing for the ability to share sealed information with Judge Preska to litigate the "Martindell issue," which she claims the government improperly handled. As an alternative, the filing requests that the appellate court exercise mandamus jurisdiction to compel the district court to modify a protective order, citing legal precedent to support both arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00019602.jpg
This legal document is a filing in Ms. Maxwell's civil appeal, arguing against an order by Judge Preska to unseal her deposition. The core argument is that unsealing the deposition would prejudice her ability to properly litigate the government's conduct (the 'Martindell' issue) before Judge Nathan in her separate criminal case. The document refutes the government's characterization of her argument, stating she is not asking the appeals court to rule on the merits of the criminal case issue, but rather to preserve the status quo to protect her Fifth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00019437.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The author argues that the Court should overturn a district court's decision, which would allow Ms. Maxwell to share information from her criminal case (under Judge Nathan) with Judge Preska in her civil case. The filing contends that the government's argument to prevent this sharing lacks a principled justification.
DOJ-OGR-00019434.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, argues that the government strategically chose not to intervene to prevent the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's depositions. The filing suggests this inaction allows the government to later claim any violation of a prior ruling was harmless. It supports its argument by citing legal precedents, such as 'Louis Vuitton' and 'SEC v. Boock', which warn of the dangers for defendants who waive their Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00019658.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061 dated October 8, 2020, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It states that her reliance on a protective order is justified, especially in the context of a grand jury investigation. The filing also asserts that information about how the government bypassed an individual named Martindell is relevant and that Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate this issue before Judge Nathan is essential for her due process and a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019650.jpg
This legal document is an introduction to a brief arguing against the government's position in an appeal. It clarifies that Ms. Maxwell's request is narrow: to share sealed information with Judge Preska and the appellate court about how prosecutors obtained her civil deposition material from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case. The brief suggests this information is crucial for the court's decision on unsealing the material and could impact Ms. Maxwell's ability to litigate in her separate criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) claims. The Government refutes the defendant's assertion that she was protected by a civil protective order when giving deposition testimony, citing case law (e.g., Andover Data Servs., Davis) to establish that such orders do not provide the same protections as the Fifth Amendment. The document also dismisses the defendant's claim that the Government's conduct violated her due process rights as "meritless."
DOJ-OGR-00003046.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, dated April 16, 2021, which presents an argument against the defendant Maxwell's claim to Fourth Amendment privacy for her deposition transcripts. The text refutes Maxwell's argument by distinguishing her case from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling in *Carpenter*, which concerned the privacy of cell phone location data and surveillance, not deposition testimony given in a civil suit. The document asserts that Maxwell's situation does not fall under the specific privacy protections established in *Carpenter*.
DOJ-OGR-00003042.jpg
This document is a legal filing, likely from the Government, arguing against a motion by a defendant named Maxwell to suppress evidence. The Government contends that Maxwell has no legal basis for suppression under the 'Martindell' precedent and that the court should decline to review a prior, coequal judge's (Chief Judge McMahon) decision to modify a protective order. The filing cites several Second Circuit cases to support its position that suppression is not the proper remedy and that pre-existing documents are not covered by the protective order's presumptions.
DOJ-OGR-00003041.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a motion from the defendant, Maxwell. The text argues against the Government's position by citing legal precedents like Palmieri and Martindell and contrasting the differing rulings of two judicial officers, Judge Netburn and Chief Judge McMahon, on the matter of sealing orders and grand jury secrecy. The core issue revolves around whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the Government's actions, with Maxwell siding with Judge Netburn's finding that the Government's arguments were 'unpersuasive'.
DOJ-OGR-00003039.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, discussing legal precedents concerning the modification of protective orders in the face of a grand jury subpoena. It cites several Second Circuit cases, including Martindell and Davis, to argue that a grand jury's broad investigative powers often outweigh a party's reliance on a protective order, particularly for pre-existing documents. The text emphasizes that the need for a grand jury to gather evidence in a criminal investigation is a powerful reason to permit modification of such orders.
DOJ-OGR-00002937.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents (page ii) for a legal filing by the Department of Justice in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines arguments against the defendant's motions to suppress evidence, asserting that Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims fail and that the government acted in good faith. The document also outlines a section arguing that a jury should decide whether Maxwell committed perjury, specifically referencing depositions from April and July 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00004897.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sealed case, filed on July 2, 2021. In the transcript, the judge questions a government representative, Mr. Rossmiller, about a procedural issue: why the government has filed a motion for relief from a protective order on behalf of a third party, rather than the third party's own law firm, Boies Schiller, filing it. The judge expresses skepticism about this arrangement and asserts their judicial authority, referencing the Martindell case as applicable precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00002760.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 15, 2021, from attorney Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter outlines the plan for submitting several reply memoranda, explaining that those containing confidential information will be redacted for the public docket. To facilitate this, the attorney will first submit both unredacted (under seal) and redacted versions to the Court and the government via email for review before any public filing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity