DOJ-OGR-00002362.jpg
558 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
558 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is a motion on behalf of a defendant named Maxwell. It argues that the government colluded with another party, starting in early 2016, to have Maxwell charged with perjury and that the government attempted to deprive her of due process through an ex parte request. The filing references a separate civil case where a similar government request was denied and calls for an evidentiary hearing to investigate potential collusion with the prosecutor's office.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout the document as the subject of investigation, prosecution, and legal motions. The document argue...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government | government agency |
Referred to as 'the government'. Accused of misrepresentations, collusion, and attempting to deprive Maxwell of due p...
|
| United States Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote regarding meetings in 2016 where sealed materials may have been shared.
|
| prosecutor’s office | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote in the context of potential collusion.
|
| Chemical Bank | company |
Mentioned in a footnote as a legal reference or analogy ('in a Chemical Bank sense') regarding the term 'colluded'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2016
Meetings took place with the United States Attorney's Office where sealed materials may have been shared.
Relationships (1)
The document details the government's efforts to investigate and prosecute Maxwell, while Maxwell's legal team argues the government engaged in misconduct and collusion against her.
Key Quotes (2)
"collusion"Source
— Author of the document
(Used to describe the alleged relationship between the government and a redacted party to have Maxwell charged with perjury.)
DOJ-OGR-00002362.jpg
Quote #1
"colluded,' in a Chemical Bank sense"Source
— Author of the document
(Used in a footnote to describe the nature of the alleged collusion between a redacted party and the prosecutor's office, referencing a legal precedent.)
DOJ-OGR-00002362.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,410 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 23
Contrary to the government’s misrepresentations, [REDACTED] did foment the investigation (or at least it tried to). And the evidence of “collusion” between the government and [REDACTED] was ample, tracing to at least early 2016 and precisely designed to have Maxwell charged with perjury.⁶ [REDACTED]
E. [REDACTED] Separately Rejects An Identical Gambit By The Government
Around the same time that [REDACTED] granted the government’s ex parte request, [REDACTED] rejected an identical request from the government in a different civil case, [REDACTED] recognized the government’s conduct for what it was: an attempt to deprive Maxwell of notice and an opportunity to be heard. Ex. H. Indeed, [REDACTED] rebuffed the government even after it alerted her to [REDACTED] order. Ex. I. As [REDACTED] found, [REDACTED] Ex. H, p 6. [REDACTED]—that [REDACTED] was all too eager for the government to investigate and prosecute Maxwell:
⁶ Maxwell has not yet been provided discovery of whether [REDACTED] shared actual sealed materials or the contents of sealed materials during its meetings with the United States Attorney’s Office in 2016. As noted below, the bare minimum that is required here is an evidentiary hearing to probe the extent to which [REDACTED] ‘colluded,’ in a Chemical Bank sense, with the prosecutor’s office.
10
DOJ-OGR-00002362
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document