DOJ-OGR-00019575.jpg
810 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing (page 2 of a letter)
File Size:
810 KB
Summary
Page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated August 24, 2020. The document argues against the government's characterization of Ms. Maxwell's defense strategy and disputes the government's claim that their issuance of subpoenas was 'standard practice,' citing case law (Martindell) to argue that the procedure used was improper. The document contains significant redactions.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Addressee of the letter (The Honorable)
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal arguments; accused by government of cherry-picking materials
|
| Judge Koeltl | Judge |
Cited in legal precedent regarding government conduct
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; accused of improper subpoena practices and ad hominem attacks
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals referenced for controlling case law
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (referenced in footer stamp)
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-08-24
Submission of legal letter to Judge Nathan regarding discovery and subpoenas
S.D.N.Y.
Defense Counsel
Judge Nathan
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (Court District)
|
Relationships (1)
Letter discusses government's accusations against Maxwell and legal disputes over subpoenas.
Key Quotes (4)
"The government’s ad hominem suggestion that Ms. Maxwell has 'cherry-pick[ed] materials' to seek an 'advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse'... reveals a fundamental (or feigned) lack of understanding"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019575.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell simply seeks to alert the judicial officers in the related Civil Litigation to facts about which her adversary is already aware."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019575.jpg
Quote #2
"Issuance of the Subpoenas Not 'Standard Practice'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019575.jpg
Quote #3
"the Second Circuit has made clear that the Government may not use its ‘awesome’ investigative powers to seek modification of a protective order merely to compare the fruits of the plaintiff’s discovery in a civil action with the results of a prosecutorial investigation in a criminal action."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019575.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document