This Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Litigant court |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal action | Maxwell's 'renewed motion' being deemed substantively meritless by 'This Court'. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Appeal of Judge Preska's order unsealing civil deposition material in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's appeal of the District Court's order. | Appellate Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A discovery request made by Juror No. 50, which this document argues the Court should refuse. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014843.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The judge, citing Ms. Maxwell's lack of remorse, imposes a sentence of 240 months (20 years) imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. The total sentence is composed of concurrent terms for Counts Three, Four, and Six.
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 10, 2020, is a memorandum arguing against the detention of Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that she has rebutted the presumption of being a flight risk and that the government's argument, based on the potential for a long sentence, oversimplifies the legal standard. The document cites several legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support its position while distinguishing Ms. Maxwell's case from those cited by the prosecution (Alindato-Perez).
DOJ-OGR-00001459.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated May 27, 2021, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding pretrial release and confinement conditions. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove MDC security protocols interfere with her trial preparation and addresses specific disputes regarding 'nighttime checks' with flashlights and the use of eye coverings. A lengthy footnote clarifies a previous inaccuracy regarding Maxwell's use of an eye mask and defends the Government against accusations of misrepresentation.
DOJ-OGR-00001457.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion denying a renewed motion for temporary release by an individual named Maxwell. The Court bases its decision on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided any compelling new reasons, such as new evidence or a change in law, to warrant a reversal of its prior decision. The document dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding a recent letter briefing and a prior order by Judge Nathan, concluding that there was no error in the original determination that Maxwell is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, addresses post-conviction bail proceedings concerning 'Maxwell.' It clarifies that an Order regarding security checks at the MDC is not a bail determination and that Maxwell's 'renewed motion' for bail is substantively meritless. The document affirms Judge Nathan's prior findings that Maxwell is a risk of flight and that no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001452.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated May 27, 2021, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's motion should be denied. It details Judge Nathan's previous findings that MDC security protocols, such as night monitoring and eye mask prohibitions, do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation or legal communications. The text notes that the appellate court has already affirmed previous orders denying Maxwell bail.
DOJ-OGR-00000930.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the pretrial detention conditions for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, are 'untenable' and prevent her from adequately preparing for trial. The filing cites legal precedents, including United States v. Jackson and United States v. Melendez-Carrions, to assert that prolonged pretrial detention under such circumstances constitutes unconstitutional punishment and violates due process.
DOJ-OGR-00021103.jpg
This legal document presents an argument that all charges against the Appellant should be dismissed because they are barred by the five-year statute of limitations for noncapital offenses. The document contends that the Government's reliance on a specific exception (18 U.S.C. § 3283) for crimes against children is an overreach and warns that a broad interpretation of this statute could have significant negative consequences within the judicial circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00021084.jpg
This legal document argues that the 'Annabi' court decision is an outlier and inconsistent with the Circuit's established law regarding the interpretation of plea agreements. The author contends that contrary to the District Court's opinion, the Circuit has been reluctant to rely on Annabi's reasoning, which construes ambiguities against the defendant, and has instead consistently held that such ambiguities should be resolved against the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00002389.jpg
This document is a page from a legal order filed on March 4, 2016, detailing the procedure for challenging the designation of discovery materials as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY". It establishes that a failure to challenge a designation immediately does not waive the right to do so later and outlines the process of providing written notice of objections. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, the matter can be brought before the court for a hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00002354(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing in the criminal case against Maxwell, argues that the government's prosecution is fundamentally flawed. The defense claims the government made untrue representations to circumvent a civil Protective Order from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' defamation case, and improperly used Maxwell's deposition transcripts from that case to bring perjury charges. The document requests that the Court suppress this evidence or grant a hearing to investigate the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021842.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that critiques the reasoning of a prior court decision, 'Annabi'. The author argues that 'Annabi' departed from the established legal doctrine that a plea agreement with a specific U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) only binds that office, not the entire U.S. government, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text cites numerous other cases in its footnotes to support this traditional, more limited interpretation of such agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00021772.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 30 of Document 87 in Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. It discusses the legal concept of "inferable bias," where a court can excuse a juror based on a significant risk of partiality, even without an explicit admission of bias. The text cites precedents from cases like Torres and McDonough to support the argument that bias can be inferred from a juror's non-disclosure of critical information during voir dire, and it specifically mentions that Juror 50 has offered an implausible explanation for such a non-disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00021688.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing that the District Court was correct in ruling that the charges against Maxwell were filed in a timely manner. The brief refutes Maxwell's claim that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse does not apply to her case. The document urges the current court to uphold Judge Nathan's previous decisions to deny Maxwell's motions to dismiss.
DOJ-OGR-00021166.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing (Case 22-1426) outlining the procedural history of Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case post-trial. It details her conviction dates, sentencing by Judge Nathan (including a $750,000 fine and concurrent prison terms), and the timeline of her appeal process, including various motions for extensions and oversized briefs filed between July 2022 and February 2023.
DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg
This legal document, part of an appellate court filing, argues that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion by Maxwell to modify a protective order. The filing contends that the appellate court should not issue a writ of mandamus and should instead affirm the lower court's decision, as the case does not present the rare and exceptional circumstances required for such intervention.
DOJ-OGR-00019593.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically an appeal, related to Case 20-3061. The appellant, Ms. Maxwell, challenges a district court order by Judge Nathan that denied her request to share information with another judge. The filing argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review this order under the collateral order doctrine, countering the government's contention that the order is unreviewable.
DOJ-OGR-00019424.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00019421.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020. The author, likely representing Ms. Maxwell, argues that a protective order is appealable by citing precedent from cases like *Pappas* and *United States v. Salameh*. The filing refutes the government's argument by clarifying the focus of Ms. Maxwell's appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019418.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that an appeal concerning Judge Nathan's order should proceed. The author contends that the appeal is separate from an ongoing criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, will not cause delays, and that waiting for the criminal trial to conclude would render the issue moot. The document references a stay on Judge Preska's order to unseal deposition material as a reason for the current proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019397.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing dated September 23, 2020, related to Case 20-3061. It argues in favor of a motion to consolidate legal proceedings involving Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Giuffre, asserting that consolidation will not cause delay or circumvent Judge Nathan's prior orders. The text emphasizes that the Court has already scheduled oral arguments for both cases on the same day.
DOJ-OGR-00019356.jpg
This page from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, dated Sept 16, 2020) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The text contends that Judge Nathan's refusal to modify a Protective Order is not an 'immediately appealable collateral order' and does not fall under categories allowing prejudgment appeals in criminal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00009220.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing that Juror No. 50 should not be given access to a sealed questionnaire prior to a potential hearing, as it might allow him to fabricate excuses. The defense concludes that the prosecution is applying a double standard regarding juror misconduct and asserts that Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the juror's presence, requesting the court vacate the conviction (implied by cut-off text).
DOJ-OGR-00019848.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, likely a brief, arguing that the pretrial detention conditions of a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, are untenable and amount to unconstitutional punishment. The author cites several legal precedents (Stephens, Weigand, Jackson, Melendez-Carrions) to support the claim that her inability to properly review discovery and the prolonged nature of her detention violate due process, especially given the government is seeking a life sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00019667.jpg
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity