Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell – Oral Argument Docket (Southern District of New York, March 31, 2017)
Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell – Oral Argument Docket (Southern District of New York, March 31, 2017) The document is a routine court docket listing parties, counsel, and judge for an oral argument. It contains no substantive allegations, financial details, or connections to powerful actors beyond the already public parties. As such, it offers no actionable investigative leads. Key insights: Case number: 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS); Judge: Hon. Robert W. Sweet; Plaintiff: Virginia L. Giuffre
Summary
Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell – Oral Argument Docket (Southern District of New York, March 31, 2017) The document is a routine court docket listing parties, counsel, and judge for an oral argument. It contains no substantive allegations, financial details, or connections to powerful actors beyond the already public parties. As such, it offers no actionable investigative leads. Key insights: Case number: 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS); Judge: Hon. Robert W. Sweet; Plaintiff: Virginia L. Giuffre
Tags
Related Documents (6)
18-2868; 16-3945-cv(L)
18-2868; 16-3945-cv(L) Brown v. Maxwell; Dershotvitz v. Giuffre 3n tlje Elute)) i§tateo Court of appeat55 for the i§ecortb Circuit AUGUST TERM 2018 No. 18-2868-cv JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 16-3945-cv(L) No. 17-1625 (CON) No. 17-1722(CON) ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA, Intervenors-Appellants, EFTA00092308 V. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee: On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ARGUED: MARCH 6, 2019 DECIDED: JULY 3, 2019 Before: r —ABRANES, POOLER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges. Intervenors-Appellants Alan Dershowitz, Michael Cernovich, and the Miami Herald Company (with reporter Julie Brown) appeal from certain orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet,
EFTA Document EFTA01658113
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00039421 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4 1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts 5 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts 9 B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 914 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 1
DS9 Document EFTA00590749
EFTA Document EFTA01263240
U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 February 28, 2019 TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL VIA EMAIL The Honorable Robert W. Sweet United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse New York, New York 10007 Re: In re Application to Unseal Civil Discovery Materials, USAO No. 2018R01618 Dear Judge Sweet: The Government writes respectfully in
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.