…172 199, and 230 (ECF No. 1068-1) later today. By order dated October 19, 2020, after expedited briefing and a hearing held on October 13, 2020, the Second Circuit affirmed this Court’s order (ECF No. 1126), rejecting Maxwell…
…and Jane Doe #2 even though federal charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had “standing” to assert violations of the CVRA rights. Id…
…and Jane Doe #2 even though federal charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had “standing” to assert violations of the CVRA rights. Id…
…and Jane Doe #2 even though federal charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had “standing” to assert violations of the CVRA rights. Id…
…172 199, and 230 (ECF No. 1068-1) later today. By order dated October 19, 2020, after expedited briefing and a hearing held on October 13, 2020, the Second Circuit affirmed this Court’s order (ECF No. 1126), rejecting Maxwell…
…and Jane Doe #2 even though federal charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had “standing” to assert violations of the CVRA rights. Id…
…response to Dershowitz’s intervention motion. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 3, Response to Motion to Intervene.3 The response explained that the allegations against Dershowitz were relevant to at least eight separate issues in the CVRA case. Id. at 18-26…
…13 at 1–2. Nor did Judge McMahon need to impose obligations on the Government; as she explained: “the fact that the request comes from a grand jury, whose proceedings are by law conducted in secret, … gives Maxwell[3…
…01/05/24 Page 8 of 10 By signing this agreement, Bpstein asser1s and certifies that the above has been read BDd explained 1o mm. Bpsteinhmeby states that he 1mderstands tho conditions of this Non- Prosecutioa Apcmen t and agree…
…did not rely on them in adjudicating a motion, this was legal error. As explained above, the proper inquiry is whether the documents are relevant to the performance of the judicial function, not whether they were relied upon.36 Indeed…
…Decl., Exhibit 9, Sur-Reply in Support Opposition to Motion to Compel. Cassell and Edwards also explained that communications with Ms. Giuffre were protected not only beginning in March 2014, but even earlier than that date when Ms. Giuffre understood…
…response to Dershowitz’s intervention motion. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 3, Response to Motion to Intervene.3 The response explained that the allegations against Dershowitz were relevant to at least eight separate issues in the CVRA case. Id. at 18-26…
…did not rely on them in adjudicating a motion, this was legal error. As explained above, the proper inquiry is whether the documents are relevant to the performance of the judicial function, not whether they were relied upon.36 Indeed…
…did not rely on them in adjudicating a motion, this was legal error. As explained above, the proper inquiry is whether the documents are relevant to the performance of the judicial function, not whether they were relied upon.36 Indeed…
…Scarola. 20. During the course of the defamation action, I explained the significant work – far in excess of one hour – that Mr. Edwards and I had done to investigate Ms. Giuffre’s sworn allegations that Dershowitz had repeatedly sexually abused…
…Scarola. 20. During the course of the defamation action, I explained the significant work – far in excess of one hour – that Mr. Edwards and I had done to investigate Ms. Giuffre’s sworn allegations that Dershowitz had repeatedly sexually abused…
…did not rely on them in adjudicating a motion, this was legal error. As explained above, the proper inquiry is whether the documents are relevant to the performance of the judicial function, not whether they were relied upon.36 Indeed…
Comments