EFTA00032725.pdf
100 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email chain
File Size:
100 KB
Summary
This document involves an internal email chain between U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial in June 2021. The prosecutors discuss legal strategy concerning a suppression hearing, noting that Maxwell's defense team filed 12 separate Memos of Law (MOLs) to bypass page limits. The correspondence also references past proceedings involving Judge Sweet and Judge McMahon, and requests access to original applications and transcripts.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the suppression hearing and memos of law discussed.
|
| AJN | Judge |
Judge Alison J. Nathan (implied by initials AJN and context of Maxwell trial). Referenced in subject line and body as...
|
| Judge Sweet | Judge |
Referenced regarding an original application and potential transcript.
|
| Judge S | Judge |
Likely Judge Sweet, referenced regarding a lack of transcript.
|
| McMahon | Judge/Official |
Referenced regarding 'McMahon proceedings' and her opinion.
|
| Redacted Sender 1 | Associate U.S. Attorney |
SDNY attorney participating in the email chain.
|
| Redacted Sender 2 | Chief, Public Corruption Unit |
SDNY attorney initiating the discussion regarding the suppression hearing.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USANYS |
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (email domain/affiliation).
|
|
| Southern District of New York |
Jurisdiction handling the case.
|
|
| The Court |
Judicial body overseeing the case.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Upcoming (as of June 2021)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Office location.
|
|
|
General location mentioned for a meeting.
|
Relationships (2)
Discussion of suppression hearing presiding judge.
Redacted Associate U.S. Attorney
→
Colleagues
→
Redacted Chief, Public Corruption Unit
Internal email correspondence regarding case strategy.
Key Quotes (3)
"She filed 12 (!!) separate MOLs as a way to evade the Court's page limits. Defense attorneys have started doing that over the last few years."Source
EFTA00032725.pdf
Quote #1
"Can I see our original application to Judge Sweet? And I assume there was no transcript before Judge S?"Source
EFTA00032725.pdf
Quote #2
"Judge Nathan has said that she will resolve the suppression motions 'at a later time' ahead of trial."Source
EFTA00032725.pdf
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,267 characters)
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS)" <[REDACTED]>
To: '[REDACTED] (USANYS)" <[REDACTED]>
Cc: '[REDACTED] (USANYS)" <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:53:25 +0000
Attachments: Ex._C_Sealed.pdf
To: '[REDACTED] (USANYS)" <[REDACTED]>
Cc: '[REDACTED] (USANYS)" <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:53:25 +0000
Attachments: Ex._C_Sealed.pdf
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:40 AM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:40 AM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Can I see our original application to Judge Sweet? And I assume there was no transcript before Judge S?
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:45 PM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:45 PM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
In the spirit of completeness, I’m also attaching their replies.
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:20 PM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: Re: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:20 PM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: Re: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Goodness!
[REDACTED]
Associate U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
[REDACTED]
Associate U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
[REDACTED]
On Jun 15, 2021, at 5:06 PM, [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]> wrote:
She filed 12 (!!) separate MOLs as a way to evade the Court’s page limits. Defense attorneys have started doing that over the last few years.
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:25 PM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:25 PM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Dumb Q: why does Maxwell have two memos of law?
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 2:19 PM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 2:19 PM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
[REDACTED],
Per our discussion, I am attaching: (1) Maxwell’s two briefs raising the suppression argument; (2) the transcript of the McMahon proceedings and her opinion (Ex D, E, G); (3) our brief (see pp 59-115); and (4) the exhibits we attached to our motion (Ex 4-7). Judge Nathan has said that she will resolve the suppression motions “at a later time” ahead of trial. Thanks very much.
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:09 AM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:09 AM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Sure, set a time other than 2:00. I’m in the office. Or Webex
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 9:11 AM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 9:11 AM
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>; [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
Subject: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Hi [REDACTED],
We had an issue come up related to the upcoming suppression hearing (no date set yet, although we expect one) related to [REDACTED] that we’d like your thoughts on. Let us know a convenient time to stop by over the next few days, thanks.
[REDACTED]
Chief, Public Corruption Unit
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Southern District of New York
[REDACTED]
Chief, Public Corruption Unit
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Southern District of New York
[REDACTED]
EFTA00032725
EFTA00032726
EFTA00032726
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document