Back to Network
11
Shared Docs
11
Same-Page
11 / 11
Mentions
Document Mentions (11 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (81)
Entities connected to both White Plains and Lanfgraf
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON282 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON90 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
United States
LOCATION46 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
the Southern District
LOCATION31 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION30 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
FBI
ORGANIZATION30 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON25 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Brady
PERSON25 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION22 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Hernandez
PERSON20 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Giglio
PERSON19 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
CO
Collins
PERSON19 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
AN
Annabi
PERSON18 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Eric Holder
PERSON18 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
RU
Russo
PERSON18 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
TH
Thompson
PERSON18 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
SA
Salameh
PERSON18 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON18 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
SA
Santobello
PERSON18 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf
AL
Aleman
PERSON18 w/ White·11 w/ Lanfgraf