Event Details

A page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The text argues that the government failed to follow proper procedures to access court-protected documents from a civil case. It highlights Ms. Maxwell's unique position as the only individual involved in all six related judicial proceedings.

This is a page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The text argues that Judge Preska erred by ignoring Ghislaine Maxwell's 'reliance argument.' It states that Maxwell did not plead the Fifth Amendment during her depositions because she relied on a civil protective order and the *Martindell* precedent, which protects witness testimony from being used by the Government for criminal investigations or perjury charges.

This document is page 5 of a 58-page legal filing (Document 60, Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. It is a table of authorities, listing legal cases, federal rules of procedure, and statutes that are cited within the larger document. The page numbers provided indicate where each authority is referenced.

This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. It argues that Judge Nathan erred by not modifying a protective order, preventing Ghislaine Maxwell from sharing sealed material with Judge Preska, which the defense claims is necessary to protect Maxwell's rights under the *Martindell* precedent. The document highlights the complexity of the litigation, noting that six sets of judicial officers are handling interrelated questions regarding Maxwell.

This document is page 24 (labeled 19 in the brief) of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, related to Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share specific information with Judge Preska to properly decide on unsealing deposition materials and a motion to stay, invoking *Martindell* protections and the Fifth Amendment. The text criticizes the government for attempting to keep relevant information secret from a 'co-equal' judge.

This document is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is being treated unfairly because she is barred from sharing information sealed under a criminal protective order with judicial officers in her civil unsealing proceedings (presided over by Judge Preska). The brief asserts that the district court erred and abused its discretion by declining to modify the protective order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).

This document is page 32 of a legal filing (dated Sept 24, 2020) arguing against the unsealing of deposition material. The text contends that unsealing the material would prevent Judge Preska from reconsidering her decision based on new information about how the government obtained the material, and would prejudice Ms. Maxwell's ability to argue before Judge Nathan that perjury counts should be dismissed due to the government's circumvention of the 'Martindell' precedent.

This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 60) filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that if Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan's order via the 'collateral order doctrine,' the appellate court should instead issue a 'writ of mandamus' to modify the protective order. The document outlines legal precedents and the three specific conditions required to issue such a writ.

This document is page 29 (labeled Page 34 of 58 in the header) of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the government is acting inconsistently by intervening to stay proceedings in the civil case 'Doe v. Indyke' to protect the criminal prosecution's integrity, while failing to do the same in 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' regarding unsealing deposition materials. The text highlights that Jane Doe alleges abuse by both Epstein and Maxwell when she was a minor.

This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 60, Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The filing's primary argument is that Judge Nathan incorrectly refused to modify a protective order, which would have allowed Ms. Maxwell to share sealed material information with Judge Preska. The document outlines the structure of the legal brief, including the case history, jurisdictional statements, and the specific points of the argument.

This document is page 21 (filed as page 26) of a legal brief in Case 20-3061, filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that a writ of mandamus is appropriate because Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and Judge Preska's unsealing order relies on inconsistent decisions within the Southern District of New York. The text discusses the unsealing of deposition materials and claims prejudice against Ms. Maxwell, though specific details are heavily redacted.