EFTA00023894.pdf
35.4 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email
File Size:
35.4 KB
Summary
This document is an email dated August 17, 2021, from Assistant US Attorney Andrew (likely Andrew Rohrbach) to redacted colleagues. It discusses a recent ruling by Judge Nathan denying Ghislaine Maxwell's supplemental motions. The email focuses on correcting the Judge's presumption that the prosecution intended to provide the defense with the identities of uncharged co-conspirators, stating clearly that they 'do not, in fact, intend to do so' and have drafted a letter to that effect.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew | Assistant United States Attorney |
Sender of the email; drafting a letter to Judge Nathan regarding co-conspirator identities.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Judge presiding over the case (AJN); denied Maxwell's supplemental motions.
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell; subject of the motions and trial.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District of New York |
Prosecution office (US Attorney's Office) handling the case.
|
|
| United States Attorney's Office |
Employer of the sender (Andrew).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-08-13
Judge Nathan denied all of Maxwell's supplemental motions and an ex parte motion for Rule 17 subpoenas.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Address of the Assistant United States Attorney.
|
Relationships (1)
Andrew is drafting a letter to Judge Nathan (AJN) regarding court orders.
Key Quotes (3)
"Judge Nathan’s order, however, says that we did not object to providing the defense with the identities of Maxwell’s uncharged co-conspirators, and she presumes we intend to do so."Source
EFTA00023894.pdf
Quote #1
"We’ve drafted the attached letter explaining that we do not, in fact, intend to do so."Source
EFTA00023894.pdf
Quote #2
"(She also denied an ex parte motion for some Rule 17 subpoenas, so it seems like our earlier motion was effective.)"Source
EFTA00023894.pdf
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,161 characters)
From: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
To: [Redacted] ([Redacted]) <[Redacted]>, [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] ([Redacted]) <[Redacted]>, [Redacted] ([Redacted]) <[Redacted]>, [Redacted] ([Redacted]) <[Redacted]>
Subject: Letter to AJN
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 23:32:34 +0000
Attachments: 2021.08.13_AJN_opinion_-_supplemental_pretrial_motions.pdf; 2021-08-
17_GM_letter_to_AJN_re_co-conspirator_identities.docx
To: [Redacted] ([Redacted]) <[Redacted]>, [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] ([Redacted]) <[Redacted]>, [Redacted] ([Redacted]) <[Redacted]>, [Redacted] ([Redacted]) <[Redacted]>
Subject: Letter to AJN
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 23:32:34 +0000
Attachments: 2021.08.13_AJN_opinion_-_supplemental_pretrial_motions.pdf; 2021-08-
17_GM_letter_to_AJN_re_co-conspirator_identities.docx
Hey [Redacted],
As you may have seen, on Friday, Judge Nathan denied all of Maxwell’s supplemental motions. (She also denied an ex parte motion for some Rule 17 subpoenas, so it seems like our earlier motion was effective.)
Judge Nathan’s order, however, says that we did not object to providing the defense with the identities of Maxwell’s uncharged co-conspirators, and she presumes we intend to do so.
We’ve drafted the attached letter explaining that we do not, in fact, intend to do so. For convenience, Judge Nathan’s opinion is attached, and the relevant passage is footnote 1 on page 12.
Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew
[Redacted]
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
[Redacted]
New York, New York 10007
[Redacted]
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
[Redacted]
New York, New York 10007
[Redacted]
EFTA00023894
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document