DOJ-OGR-00001757.jpg
592 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
592 KB
Summary
This is page 6 of a legal document dated August 17, 2020, filed in a case before Judge Alison J. Nathan. The filing argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell for the modification of a Protective Order, claiming that secrecy surrounding a government investigation and grand jury subpoena has undermined the fairness of the adversarial process and unfairly disadvantaged her.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | The Honorable (Judge) |
The document is addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Party to the case |
Mentioned as being 'unfairly disadvantaged' by the circumstances described in the document.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | Government agency |
Mentioned as having conducted an investigation and being involved in a grand jury subpoena.
|
| Advisory Committee | Judicial Committee |
Cited as the source of a note to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding witness secrecy.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A grand jury subpoena was issued as part of a government investigation.
A government investigation was conducted.
Relationships (1)
The document describes an 'adversarial process' and claims that Ms. Maxwell is 'unfairly disadvantaged' by the government's actions related to a subpoena and investigation.
Key Quotes (1)
"The rule does not impose any obligation of secrecy on witnesses."Source
— Fed. R. Crim. P. 6, Advisory Committee Note to Subdivision 6(e)2.
(Quoted to support the argument that the secrecy surrounding the grand jury process is not absolute and is creating an unfair disadvantage.)
DOJ-OGR-00001757.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (996 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 52 Filed 09/02/20 Page 6 of 8
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
August 17, 2020
Page 6
August 17, 2020
Page 6
There are at least three compelling reasons to modify the Protective Order. First, [REDACTED]
The partial secrecy surrounding the Material has also fundamentally undermined the fairness of the adversarial process. Although the grand jury subpoena and government investigation were known to [REDACTED]
“The rule does not impose any obligation of secrecy on witnesses.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6, Advisory Committee Note to Subdivision 6(e)2. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Too many questions remain unanswered including exactly what was said between the government and [REDACTED], when was it said, and precisely what was turned over: [REDACTED]. Without the ability to use the Material in the very limited fashion proposed Ms. Maxwell she is unfairly disadvantaged [REDACTED]. Moreover, instead of candidly revealing the fact of the subpoena, [REDACTED]
Second, [REDACTED]
DOJ-OGR-00001757
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document