Relationship Details

This legal document is a motion filed by Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell on September 10, 2020, requesting the consolidation of two appeals. The first is from her criminal case (United States v. Maxwell) and the second is from a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell). Maxwell argues the cases are intertwined because new information from the criminal case is relevant to the court's decision to unseal deposition material in the civil case.

This document is the conclusion page of a legal filing dated September 10, 2020, from the law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. On behalf of their client, Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, the attorneys request that the court consolidate two separate cases: United States v. Maxwell (Case No. 20-3061) and Giuffre v. Maxwell (Case No. 20-2413).

This document is page 2 of an appellate court order dated October 19, 2020, dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The court outlines the 'final judgment rule,' explaining that appeals generally cannot occur until after a final conviction and sentencing, and determines Maxwell's request does not meet the strict criteria for an exception (collateral order). The document cites numerous legal precedents regarding jurisdiction and finality in criminal cases.

A 'Notice of Docket Activity' email from the Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, regarding the case Giuffre v. Maxwell (20-2413). The document confirms the filing of a 'Notice of Hearing Date Acknowledgment' on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell on October 9, 2020, and lists the attorneys served electronically with the notice.

This document is Page 2 of a court order dated November 9, 2020, regarding Case 20-3061. The court denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to consolidate her appeal with 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' and dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The text largely focuses on legal precedents regarding the 'final judgment rule' and the strict limitations on interlocutory appeals in criminal cases.

This document is Page 6 of a legal filing (Motion to Suppress) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). Maxwell's defense argues that Counts Five and Six (perjury charges) should be dismissed because they rely on evidence obtained through an unlawful grand jury subpoena that violated a Protective Order in the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The document asserts the government proceeded 'ex parte' to avoid contestation.

This document is page 2 of a court order filed on November 9, 2020, dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Maxwell sought to appeal a lower court's denial of her request to modify a protective order and attempted to consolidate this with the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil case. The court outlines legal precedents regarding the 'final judgment rule' and 'collateral order exception' to justify the dismissal.

This is a legal motion filed on October 8, 2020, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., requests permission to file an unredacted reply brief under seal. The motion is part of an appeal concerning a lower court order by Judge Nathan which denied a request to modify a criminal protective order.

This document is a page from a court docket (SDNY) covering proceedings between June 25, 2021, and July 1, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include Judge Alison J. Nathan denying Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a law firm involved in her previous civil litigation (Giuffre v. Maxwell) and ordering the unsealing of related documents. The judge also granted a request to limit updates on Maxwell's confinement conditions only to material changes.

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.

A court order filed on March 29, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Judge orders that specific pages (129–134) of the Government's brief be unredacted because the information is already public record in a superseding indictment. The Judge also addresses proposed redactions related to the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell, requiring separate justification for maintaining those seals.

This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on July 1, 2021. The order lifts the temporary seal on a previous opinion regarding Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence. It also unseals a memorandum decision, an order, and hearing transcripts from a related civil case, Giuffre v. Maxwell, and orders Maxwell to file these documents on the public docket without redaction by July 2, 2021.

This legal document is an 'Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance' filed on September 10, 2020, by attorney Laura A. Menninger of the firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. Menninger formally enters her appearance as lead counsel for the defendant-appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Docket No. 20-3061). The filing confirms the accuracy of case details, provides counsel's contact information, lists related cases, and certifies Menninger's admission to practice before the court.

This legal document is a motion filed on February 4, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to suppress evidence and dismiss two perjury counts. The motion argues that the government unlawfully obtained evidence from Maxwell's civil depositions in a separate defamation case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) via a grand jury subpoena, thereby violating a Protective Order that prohibited sharing that material with law enforcement.

This document is a legal motion filed on February 4, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team seeking to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena and to dismiss perjury charges (Counts Five and Six). The defense argues that the government unlawfully circumvented a Protective Order from the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* by issuing a subpoena and proceeding *ex parte* to prevent the accuracy of their representations from being contested. The recipient of the subpoena and specific details of the government's arguments are heavily redacted.

This document is a court docket report from the SDNY case against Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from March 1 to March 23, 2021. It details the denial of Maxwell's third motion for bail, various letters exchanged regarding pretrial motions and redactions, and orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the sealing of exhibits. It specifically mentions the related civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell (15-cv-7433) in the context of unsealing transcript portions.

This document is a page from the SDNY court docket for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426) covering June 2021. It details the denial of Maxwell's bail appeal by the Second Circuit, her complaints regarding sleep deprivation at the MDC, and the denial of her motions to suppress evidence. It also orders the unsealing of documents related to the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell.

This is a letter dated August 10, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Laura A. Menninger, to Judge Loretta A. Preska. The letter informs the court about newly discovered information that is critical to both Maxwell's civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) and her separate criminal case. Counsel explains they are currently barred from disclosing this information due to a protective order in the criminal case but intend to seek a modification of that order to share the details with the court.

This legal document is a motion filed on February 4, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to suppress evidence and dismiss two perjury counts against her. The motion argues that the government unlawfully obtained evidence from her civil depositions in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case via a grand jury subpoena, thereby violating a Protective Order from that civil case which prohibited sharing discovery materials with law enforcement.