EFTA00032757.pdf
127 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Internal email chain (us attorney's office)
File Size:
127 KB
Summary
This document consists of an internal email chain within the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) dated June 15-16, 2021, discussing the upcoming suppression hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. The correspondence addresses legal strategy, including Maxwell's filing of 12 separate memos of law to evade page limits, and clarifies the identity of Stan Pottinger as a lawyer from Boies Schiller who represented a plaintiff in a related civil action. The emails also reference previous proceedings before Judge Sweet and Judge McMahon.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the suppression hearing and memos of law discussed.
|
| Stan Pottinger | Lawyer |
Identified as a lawyer at Boies Schiller who represented the plaintiff in a civil action.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Presiding judge (AJN - Alison J. Nathan); stated she will resolve suppression motions at a later time.
|
| Judge Sweet | Judge |
Mentioned regarding an original application and lack of transcript.
|
| McMahon | Judge (likely) |
Referenced regarding 'McMahon proceedings' and her opinion.
|
| Rossmiller | Mentioned Person |
Mentioned in relation to an issue with the upcoming suppression hearing.
|
| Kramer | Mentioned Person |
Mentioned in relation to an issue with the upcoming suppression hearing.
|
| Redacted Sender/Recipients | USANYS Attorneys/Staff |
Participants in the email chain discussing legal strategy.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USANYS |
U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of New York (Sender/Recipient domain).
|
|
| Boies Schiller |
Law firm where Stan Pottinger worked.
|
|
| Southern District of New York |
Jurisdiction listed in signature block.
|
|
| Public Corruption Unit |
Unit within USANYS listed in signature block.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021 (Upcoming relative to email)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Office location.
|
Relationships (3)
Pottinger was a lawyer at Boies Schiller
represented [Redacted], the plaintiff in the civil action
Context of suppression hearing before AJN (Alison J Nathan)
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
EFTA00032757.pdf
Quote #1
"Pottinger was a lawyer at Boies Schiller who represented [Redacted], the plaintiff in the civil action."Source
EFTA00032757.pdf
Quote #2
"Judge Nathan has said that she will resolve the suppression motions 'at a later time' ahead of trial."Source
EFTA00032757.pdf
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,044 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 15:58:13 +0000
Attachments: 2019-02-28,_JE,_letter_re_all_writs_act_application,_15_Civ_7433_(RWS).pdf; 2019-02-28, JE_letter_re_all_writs_act_application,_17_Civ_0616_(SN).pdf
To: [Redacted] (USANYS)" <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] (USANYS)" <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:58:13 +0000
Attachments: 2019-02-28,_JE,_letter_re_all_writs_act_application,_15_Civ_7433_(RWS).pdf; 2019-02-28, JE_letter_re_all_writs_act_application,_17_Civ_0616_(SN).pdf
Pottinger was a lawyer at Boies Schiller who represented [Redacted], the plaintiff in the civil action.
The two letters we submitted in connection with our All Writs Application are attached.
From: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:53 AM
To: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:53 AM
To: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Another Q: who's Stan Pottinger?
From: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:53 AM
To: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:53 AM
To: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing
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
EFTA00032757
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],
EFTA00032758
We had an issue come up related to the upcoming suppression hearing (no date set yet, although we expect one) related to Rossmiller/Kramer that we'd like your thoughts on. Let us know a convenient time to stop by over the next few days, thanks.
[Redacted]
[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]
EFTA00032759
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document