September 28, 2020
Filing of Document 69 in Case 20-3061.
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Counsel | person | 2 | View Entity |
| The government | organization | 3113 | View Entity |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL | person | 9575 | View Entity |
DOJ-OGR-00019601.jpg
Page 10 of a legal filing (Document 69) dated September 28, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The text argues for the validity of an interlocutory appeal under collateral order jurisdiction, countering the government's claim that issues have not been finally resolved. It discusses the government's use of subpoenas to obtain evidence for a criminal case and Maxwell's challenge to the legitimacy of those methods within the context of a civil appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019595.jpg
This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 28, 2020, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 20-3061). The text argues that a district court's refusal to modify a protective order is immediately appealable under the 'collateral order doctrine.' The filing contends that the appeal is necessary to share 'critical new information' with Judge Preska before deposition materials in the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* are unsealed, arguing that post-judgment review would be moot.
DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal brief (Case 20-3061) filed on September 28, 2020, arguing that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a district court's decision regarding a protective order in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text focuses on the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites legal precedents to support the claim that the unsealing order can be appealed immediately without waiting for the criminal trial to conclude. It mentions Ms. Maxwell's intention to stay the unsealing process.
DOJ-OGR-00019597.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, concerning Case 20-3061. It presents a legal argument distinguishing the current appeal from *Flanagan v. United States*, asserting that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding Judge Nathan's order is comparable to a bail reduction motion because the harm (unsealing deposition materials) would be irreversible ("the cat is irretrievably out of the bag") if not addressed immediately. The text argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share information from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska to prevent the unsealing order from going into effect without reconsideration.
Events with shared participants
Notice of Appearance as Substitute Counsel filed on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell
2021-03-30 • 02nd Circuit Court of Appeals
A shipment discussed in court, sent from Ghislaine Maxwell to Casey Wasserman. The event is stated to have occurred in 'October'.
Date unknown
A meeting where the government showed the witness (Visoski) records of three flights.
Date unknown
LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
2020-07-29
Filing or processing of the Reply Memorandum in Support of Third Motion for Bail
2021-04-01 • Federal Court (Implied)
The Government entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein.
2007-01-01
Lawyers for accusers met with the Government to convince them to open an investigation of Ms. Maxwell.
2016-01-01
The Government gave on-the-record assurances to the Court regarding investigative files.
2020-07-14
Filing of Document 172-1 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
2021-03-23 • US District Court
Arraignment. Defendant entered plea of Not Guilty. Trial set for July 12, 2021.
2020-07-14 • Video Conference / Telephone
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event