DOJ-OGR-00019667.jpg
417 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / appellate brief (conclusion page)
File Size:
417 KB
Summary
This is the conclusion page of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, arguing on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text requests that the appellate court reverse a district court order denying Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. It references the 'Martindell' legal standard and accuses the government of trying to shield itself from a forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the motion to modify a protective order; challenging government circumvention.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Judge presiding over a related matter where Maxwell has a forthcoming motion.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
District court judge; the filing argues she should not 'remain in the dark'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The government |
Opposing Maxwell's motion; accused of trying to shield itself.
|
|
| This Court |
The court being addressed to reverse the lower court's order (likely 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals based on Case 20-30...
|
|
| District court |
The court that issued the order denying Maxwell's motion.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-10-08
Filing of legal document concluding arguments to reverse district court order.
Court of Appeals
Unknown (Future relative to doc)
Relationships (2)
Maxwell is challenging the government's circumvention of Martindell.
Maxwell has a forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan.
Key Quotes (4)
"The government wants to shield itself from Ms. Maxwell’s forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan challenging its circumvention of Martindell."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019667.jpg
Quote #1
"This Court should not prejudge the Martindell issue as the government seeks."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019667.jpg
Quote #2
"At bottom, when asked to justify why Judge Preska and this Court should remain in the dark, the government offers little more than this: because the protective order says so."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019667.jpg
Quote #3
"This Court should reverse the district court’s order denying Ms. Maxwell’s motion to modify the protective order."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019667.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (805 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page21 of 23
though, is obvious: The government wants to shield itself from Ms. Maxwell’s
forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan challenging its circumvention of
Martindell. This Court should not prejudge the Martindell issue as the government
seeks.
forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan challenging its circumvention of
Martindell. This Court should not prejudge the Martindell issue as the government
seeks.
Conclusion
At bottom, when asked to justify why Judge Preska and this Court should
remain in the dark, the government offers little more than this: because the
protective order says so. But in the face of all the reasons why the relevant judicial
decision makers should have all the relevant information, the government’s answer
is not good enough.
remain in the dark, the government offers little more than this: because the
protective order says so. But in the face of all the reasons why the relevant judicial
decision makers should have all the relevant information, the government’s answer
is not good enough.
This Court should reverse the district court’s order denying Ms. Maxwell’s
motion to modify the protective order.
motion to modify the protective order.
October 8, 2020.
18
DOJ-OGR-00019667
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document