Documents tagged "Plaintiffs"
Found 10 documents with this tag
DOJ-OGR-00006991.jpg
The image appears to be a digital representation of a document with several paragraphs of text, which is not fully legible due to the resolution and size of the text. The text seems to include various phrases such as "the Court's review," "Defendants," "Plaintiffs," and mentions a specific case number or code "07-54621." At the bottom of the image, there are two dates: one in 2008 and another in 2009, suggesting that this document is related to legal proceedings from around that time period. The document has a header with text, but the specific content of this text is not clearly visible due to the image quality.
DOJ-OGR-00006251.jpg
The image displays a page of text that appears to be from an official document or legal case. The text is centered and includes numbered points followed by explanations or arguments. It mentions "Plaintiffs" and discusses topics such as the standard of review for evidentiary rulings, admissibility of evidence, the burden of proof in certain legal contexts, and expert testimony. The page number 34 is visible at the bottom left corner of the image.
DOJ-OGR-00006104.jpg
The image is a low-resolution photograph of a document with text and graphical elements, likely related to legal proceedings given the context provided by the title "Court Report" in large letters at the top. The document appears to be a court decision or a report on legal matters, possibly an official record from a court case. The visible text is too small to read clearly, but it includes what seems to be references and sections such as "Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint." There are highlights in purple and annotations suggesting that specific parts of the document have been emphasized or commented on by someone reviewing the material.
DOJ-OGR-00006032.jpg
The image displays a document with printed text and a header containing an emblem. The top of the document has a bold heading followed by a reference number "1:07-cv-04692" which suggests that this is a court case or legal proceeding number. The body of the text includes sections with headings like "MEMORANDUM AND ORDER" and mentions "Plaintiffs, Defendants," indicating that there are parties involved in the legal matter. There's also a section titled "STATEMENT OF THE CASE," which typically outlines the facts or context of the case being discussed. The document appears to be an official court proceeding document with information redacted for privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00008870.jpg
The image shows a document with the title "United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois" and a subheading "Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber" at the top. Below this, there is a list titled "Plaintiffs' Witness List" which includes names such as "Jane Doe" and other fictitious names often used in court documents to protect privacy. The document has visible redactions, with lines drawn through certain parts of the text, likely to obscure sensitive information or details that are not meant to be shared publicly. The background is a standard white paper, and there's no additional context provided beyond what can be read from the text on the document itself.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830.txt
The document discusses the legal proceedings related to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. It focuses on the jurisdictional issues concerning certain defendants and their connections to the United States. The court rules that some claims against individual defendants are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, while plaintiffs are entitled to jurisdictional discovery regarding defendant Privatbank's activities in the United States from 1992-1998. Additionally, the court grants summary judgment on certain claims related to sovereign immunity and international law.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016197.txt
The document is a legal case involving two parties, referred to as "Plaintiffs" and "Defendants." The Plaintiffs are suing the Defendants for alleged fraudulent practices related to a financial transaction. The key topics include a dispute over the value of assets involved in the transaction, claims of misrepresentation by the Defendants, and a request from the Plaintiffs for damages and other relief. The document is part of the ongoing legal proceedings, providing further details on the case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015650.txt
The document is a response from Virginia Giuffre in a court case where Alan Dershowitz has asked for clarification or relief from a confidentiality order regarding her deposition. The deposition contains sensitive information about Giuffre's experiences as a minor victim of sexual trafficking, and she supports the confidential nature of the deposition being provided to law enforcement to investigate the crimes committed against her.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015590.txt
This document is a legal filing in the case of BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, PAUL G. CASSELL vs ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. The defendant Alan M. Dershowitz has filed a motion to modify a confidentiality order to allow him to use testimony from a non-party witness named Virginia Roberts Giuffre as part of his defense strategy in the case. He argues that this is necessary for due process and fairness.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757.txt
The document is a legal filing regarding the case Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell vs Alan M. Dershowitz in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida. The plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants are responding to Dershowitz's motion to determine the confidentiality of certain court records related to allegations made by Virginia Giuffre that she was sexually abused by Dershowitz. The filing argues that the court records in question should not be considered confidential because they support the conclusion that Dershowitz abused Ms. Giuffre and establish a strong basis for filing the allegations on her behalf. The plaintiffs also note that the records have never been found to be "confidential" by any other court and that Dershowitz has referred to them in media interviews and pleadings before this Court, which implies that he wants "everything to be made public" and implied that Edwards and Cassell had something to hide. The filing goes on to discuss the legal principles governing the sealing of court records, including the presumption of openness and the heavy burden placed on the party seeking closure. The plaintiffs argue that Dershowitz has failed to carry this burden and request that the court deny his motion in its entirety.