DOJ-OGR-00002365(1).jpg
591 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (criminal case)
File Size:
591 KB
Summary
This document is page 18 of a court filing (Document 134) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The text argues that the government/prosecutor engaged in misconduct similar to the 'Chemical Bank' precedent, specifically by misleading the court regarding previous meetings with a firm and encouraging an investigation despite protective orders. The document contains significant redactions regarding the judge's specific comments and rulings.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| [REDACTED] | Judge (implied) |
Explained why she haled the prosecutor back into court; specifically asked about defendant's actions.
|
| The Prosecutor | Government Counsel |
Accused of omitting mention of previous meetings and falsely leading the court.
|
| Counsel for the defendant (in Chemical Bank case) | Lawyer |
Approached Manhattan DA with evidence despite protective order in the referenced precedent case.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Chemical Bank |
Referenced case law/precedent (Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.).
|
|
| Manhattan District Attorney’s Office |
Agency approached by defendant's counsel in the Chemical Bank precedent.
|
|
| District Court |
Court that reprimanded the defendant in the Chemical Bank case.
|
|
| The Bar |
Legal profession, referenced regarding traditions of respecting court orders.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution in the current case.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (implied by Bates stamp).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the District Attorney's Office mentioned in the precedent.
|
Relationships (2)
Prosecutor allegedly made misrepresentations to the [Redacted] Judge.
Counsel for Defendant (Chemical Bank)
→
Collusion (Alleged in precedent)
→
Manhattan District Attorney's Office
Counsel approached DA despite protective order.
Key Quotes (3)
"The prosecutor omitted any mention of his office’s previous meetings with the firm, and falsely led the court to believe that [REDACTED] had not encouraged its investigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002365(1).jpg
Quote #1
"Once this collusion came to light, the district court reprimanded the defendant for its “disregard of the [protective] order[]” and admonished its behavior as “contrary to the traditions of the Bar which dictate that court orders be respected.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002365(1).jpg
Quote #2
"In no uncertain terms, [REDACTED] explained why she had haled the prosecutor back into court"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002365(1).jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,546 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 18 of 23
had in the Chemical Bank case. In no uncertain terms, [REDACTED] explained why she had
haled the prosecutor back into court:
haled the prosecutor back into court:
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
Ex. E, p 2.
In Chemical Bank, a protective order precluded parties to a civil case from disclosing
confidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92–93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the
defendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and suggested that it had
evidence of criminal violations relating to the case. Id. at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena,
and the defendant produced to the government various confidential documents without
complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the protective order. Id.
Once this collusion came to light, the district court reprimanded the defendant for its “disregard
of the [protective] order[]” and admonished its behavior as “contrary to the traditions of the Bar
which dictate that court orders be respected.” Id.
confidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92–93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the
defendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and suggested that it had
evidence of criminal violations relating to the case. Id. at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena,
and the defendant produced to the government various confidential documents without
complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the protective order. Id.
Once this collusion came to light, the district court reprimanded the defendant for its “disregard
of the [protective] order[]” and admonished its behavior as “contrary to the traditions of the Bar
which dictate that court orders be respected.” Id.
In addressing the government’s application here, [REDACTED] specifically asked
whether [REDACTED] had acted as the defendant did in Chemical Bank. The prosecutor omitted
any mention of his office’s previous meetings with the firm, and falsely led the court to believe
that [REDACTED] had not encouraged its investigation. Reassured by the misrepresentations,
[REDACTED] commented:
whether [REDACTED] had acted as the defendant did in Chemical Bank. The prosecutor omitted
any mention of his office’s previous meetings with the firm, and falsely led the court to believe
that [REDACTED] had not encouraged its investigation. Reassured by the misrepresentations,
[REDACTED] commented:
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
13
DOJ-OGR-00002365
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document