Lugosch
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006-01-01 | Legal ruling | A ruling was made in the case of Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, establishing a framework for... | Second Circuit | View |
| 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-00001863.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated November 25, 2020, arguing for the sealing of certain court documents. The filing cites extreme harassment and violent threats against Ms. Maxwell on social media as a reason to protect the identities of sureties. It also mentions a confidential financial report on Ms. Maxwell prepared by Macalvins Limited and discusses legal precedents regarding the presumption of public access to court records.
DOJ-OGR-00020671.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the Southern District of New York for the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, dated February 28, 2023, but detailing events from August 2021. The entries describe several orders by Judge Alison J. Nathan, including the denial of Maxwell's motion for subpoenas and instructions on sealing documents. The docket also records letters filed by both the defense, concerning interference with attorney-client communications at the MDC, and the prosecution (USA), regarding the identification of co-conspirators, along with the judge's orders for the parties to confer on these issues.
DOJ-OGR-00020553.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket log for Case 22-1426, dated July 8, 2022. It details a series of legal filings that occurred primarily on November 22, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries consist of orders signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan and various letter motions from both the prosecution (USA) and the defense concerning evidence (birth certificates, Exhibit 52), witnesses (Witness-3, Accuser-3), subpoenas, and proposed redactions to court documents.
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-00020452.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from Case 22-1426, dated July 8, 2022, detailing numerous filings that occurred on November 22, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries consist of orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan and a series of letter motions from both the prosecution (USA) and the defense. The filings cover procedural matters such as proposed redactions, motions to quash subpoenas, admissibility of witness testimony (Witness-3), and evidence related to specific exhibits and accusers (Accuser-3).
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-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-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-00008914.jpg
This legal document is a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 11, 2022. The Court denies two separate requests: first, it denies Juror 50's motion to intervene in the criminal case, and second, it denies the Defendant's requests to either strike or seal Juror 50's motion. The Court's reasoning relies on legal precedent, stating that motions to strike are disfavored and that Juror 50's motion qualifies as a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access.
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-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-00010757.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 29, 2022, argues for the immediate unsealing of a defendant's motion for a new trial and related documents, such as juror questionnaires. The argument is based on the First Amendment right of public access to court proceedings, which is asserted to be particularly strong when allegations of juror misconduct are involved. The document contends that the public interest in transparency is significant, especially in a high-profile case, and that no sufficient justification for sealing the documents has been provided.
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-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-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.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002762.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York, filed on March 18, 2021. The order addresses disputes between the Government and the Defendant regarding requests to redact and seal information in pre-trial motions. The Court outlines the three-part legal test from the Second Circuit it will use to rule on these requests, balancing the presumption of public access against factors like judicial efficiency and privacy interests.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity