EFTA00028929.pdf
1.89 MB
Extraction Summary
12
People
8
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
10
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (reply memorandum)
File Size:
1.89 MB
Summary
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, requesting the suppression of evidence obtained from a government subpoena to Boies Schiller and dismissal of counts five and six. It includes a Table of Contents, Table of Authorities citing various legal cases and rules, and a Table of Exhibits detailing communications and notes related to the case from 2016 to 2021, many involving AUSAs and individuals like Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley. The memorandum argues that the government misled the court and that the evidence should be suppressed due to due process violations.
People (12)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the motion to suppress evidence and dismiss counts
|
| Jeffrey S. Pagliuca | Attorney |
Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
|
| Laura A. Menninger | Attorney |
Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
|
| Christian R. Everdell | Attorney |
Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
|
| Bobbi C. Sternheim | Attorney |
Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of news article |
Mentioned in 'Other Authorities' regarding federal prosecutors declining to pursue his case in 2016
|
| Peter Skinner | Individual mentioned in exhibits |
Meeting/contacts with AUSA, email string participant
|
| Stan Pottinger | Individual mentioned in exhibits |
Meeting/contacts with AUSA, email string participant, sender of email to AUSA
|
| Brad Edwards | Individual mentioned in exhibits |
Meeting/contacts with AUSA, email string participant, cc'd on email from Stan Pottinger
|
| Sigrid McCawley | Individual mentioned in exhibits |
Email string participant, cc'd on email from Stan Pottinger
|
| Daniel Siad | Subject of email |
Referenced in an email from Stan Pottinger to AUSA
|
| Judge McMahon | Judge |
Referenced regarding government's misrepresentation
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK |
Court where the document is filed
|
|
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. |
Law firm of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and Laura A. Menninger
|
|
| COHEN & GRESSER LLP |
Law firm of Christian R. Everdell
|
|
| Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim |
Law firm of Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
|
| Boies Schiller |
Law firm from whom evidence was obtained via subpoena
|
|
| U.S. Dept. of Justice |
Referenced in JUSTICE MANUAL
|
|
| New York Daily News |
Publisher of news article mentioned in 'Other Authorities'
|
|
| Criminal Division |
Referenced as having a 'Chief' in Exhibit M
|
Timeline (3 events)
2016
Federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case.
Manhattan
2016-06-16
Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit in v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.).
S.D.N.Y.
Defendant [REDACTED]
Maxwell
Meeting and Contacts with Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, and Brad Edwards by AUSA [REDACTED].
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court
|
|
|
Manhattan federal prosecutors mentioned in news article
|
Relationships (10)
Mentioned together in the context of federal prosecutors declining to pursue a case against them.
Listed as 'Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell'
Listed as 'Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell'
Listed as 'Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell'
Listed as 'Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell'
Exhibit K, L
Exhibit K, L, O
Exhibit K, L, O
Exhibit L, O
AUSA [REDACTED]
→
Corresponded with
→
Chief of the Criminal Division
Exhibit M
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (8,250 characters)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
--------------------------x
20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL
IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO
SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA
TO BOIES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX
IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO
SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA
TO BOIES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
[REDACTED]
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
[REDACTED]
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
[REDACTED]
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
[REDACTED]
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
[REDACTED]
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
[REDACTED]
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
EFTA00028929
Table of Contents
Table of Contents....................................................................................................................i
Table of Authorities...............................................................................................................ii
Table of Exhibits...................................................................................................................iv
Introduction and Summary of the Argument.........................................................................1
I. The Facts....................................................................................................................2
II. The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion....................................................6
A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible........................................................7
B. Assuming the Government's Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the Government
Still Misled the Court.............................................................................................17
III. The Materiality of the Government's False Statements..........................................18
IV. The Remedy for the Government's Misconduct.......................................................20
A. Pursuant to its Inherent Power, this Court Should Suppress the Evidence Obtained
from Boies Schiller and Dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the Fruits of that
Evidence..................................................................................................................20
B. At a Minimum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell May Inquire
into the Circumstances Surrounding the Government's Misrepresentation to
Judge McMahon.....................................................................................................26
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................27
Certificate of Service...........................................................................................................29
Table of Authorities...............................................................................................................ii
Table of Exhibits...................................................................................................................iv
Introduction and Summary of the Argument.........................................................................1
I. The Facts....................................................................................................................2
II. The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion....................................................6
A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible........................................................7
B. Assuming the Government's Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the Government
Still Misled the Court.............................................................................................17
III. The Materiality of the Government's False Statements..........................................18
IV. The Remedy for the Government's Misconduct.......................................................20
A. Pursuant to its Inherent Power, this Court Should Suppress the Evidence Obtained
from Boies Schiller and Dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the Fruits of that
Evidence..................................................................................................................20
B. At a Minimum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell May Inquire
into the Circumstances Surrounding the Government's Misrepresentation to
Judge McMahon.....................................................................................................26
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................27
Certificate of Service...........................................................................................................29
i
EFTA00028930
Table of Authorities
Cases
Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006)..............................................................................................8
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935).........................................................................24
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)................................................................................11
v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019)...................................................................19, 20
Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)..........................14, 18, 19
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960)........................................................................20
Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v. Commonwealth Mgmt. Assocs., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805
(S.D.N.Y. 2001)............................................................................................................25
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 4 (1978).............................................................................20, 22
v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)......................................................8, 15
Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976)....................................................................20
In re WinNet R CJSC, 2017 WL 1373918 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017).......24
Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979).......................................18, 21
McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 333 (1943)....................................................................20
Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)...............................................24
Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956)...........................................................................20
United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013)..............................................................23
United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980)......................................................20, 22, 25, 26
United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008).............................................................22
United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018)..........................................................23, 25
United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996)..........................................................20
United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S1 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776
(S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009)................................................................................................25
Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006)..............................................................................................8
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935).........................................................................24
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)................................................................................11
v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019)...................................................................19, 20
Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)..........................14, 18, 19
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960)........................................................................20
Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v. Commonwealth Mgmt. Assocs., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805
(S.D.N.Y. 2001)............................................................................................................25
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 4 (1978).............................................................................20, 22
v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)......................................................8, 15
Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976)....................................................................20
In re WinNet R CJSC, 2017 WL 1373918 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017).......24
Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979).......................................18, 21
McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 333 (1943)....................................................................20
Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)...............................................24
Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956)...........................................................................20
United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013)..............................................................23
United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980)......................................................20, 22, 25, 26
United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008).............................................................22
United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018)..........................................................23, 25
United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996)..........................................................20
United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S1 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776
(S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009)................................................................................................25
ii
EFTA00028931
United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980)......................................................................20
United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1992)..............................................................25
United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973)......................................................................21
United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997)...........................................................23
Wang v. Reno, 81 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1996)...........................................................................2
Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987)........................................................................24
Other Authorities
Stephen Rex [REDACTED], Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020)............................11
U.S. Dept. of Justice, JUSTICE MANUAL, JM § 9-11.151...................................................15
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2................................................................................................................19
N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(d)..................................................................24
N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8, cmt. [6A].....................................................16
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. CONST. amend. IV.......................................................................................................22
U.S. CONST. amend. V........................................................................................................21
U.S. CONST. amend. VI.......................................................................................................26
United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1992)..............................................................25
United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973)......................................................................21
United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997)...........................................................23
Wang v. Reno, 81 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1996)...........................................................................2
Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987)........................................................................24
Other Authorities
Stephen Rex [REDACTED], Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020)............................11
U.S. Dept. of Justice, JUSTICE MANUAL, JM § 9-11.151...................................................15
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2................................................................................................................19
N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(d)..................................................................24
N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8, cmt. [6A].....................................................16
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. CONST. amend. IV.......................................................................................................22
U.S. CONST. amend. V........................................................................................................21
U.S. CONST. amend. VI.......................................................................................................26
iii
EFTA00028932
Table of Exhibits
EXHIBIT J: Notes of Feb. 11, 2021 Call with AUSA [REDACTED] (Sealed)
EXHIBIT K: Handwritten Notes by AUSA [REDACTED] of Meeting and Contacts with Peter Skinner,
Stan Pottinger, and Brad Edwards (Sealed)
EXHIBIT L: Email String Between Peter Skinner and AUSA [REDACTED] cc'ing Stan Pottinger, Brad
Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley (Feb. 29, 2016-Mar. 5, 2016) (Sealed)
EXHIBIT M: Emails between AUSA [REDACTED] and Chief of the Criminal Division (Mar. 3, 2016)
(Sealed)
EXHIBIT N: Emails between AUSA [REDACTED] and AUSA [REDACTED] and other AUSAs (Nov. 30,
2018-Dec. 6, 2018) (Sealed)
EXHIBIT O: Email from Stan Pottinger to AUSA [REDACTED] cc'ing Brad Edwards and Sigrid
McCawley, re Daniel Siad (Mar. 3, 2016) (Sealed)
EXHIBIT P: Supplemental Privilege Log, Apr. 4, 2016
EXHIBIT Q: Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten
Deposition Limit, [REDACTED] v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.) (June 16, 2016)
EXHIBIT K: Handwritten Notes by AUSA [REDACTED] of Meeting and Contacts with Peter Skinner,
Stan Pottinger, and Brad Edwards (Sealed)
EXHIBIT L: Email String Between Peter Skinner and AUSA [REDACTED] cc'ing Stan Pottinger, Brad
Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley (Feb. 29, 2016-Mar. 5, 2016) (Sealed)
EXHIBIT M: Emails between AUSA [REDACTED] and Chief of the Criminal Division (Mar. 3, 2016)
(Sealed)
EXHIBIT N: Emails between AUSA [REDACTED] and AUSA [REDACTED] and other AUSAs (Nov. 30,
2018-Dec. 6, 2018) (Sealed)
EXHIBIT O: Email from Stan Pottinger to AUSA [REDACTED] cc'ing Brad Edwards and Sigrid
McCawley, re Daniel Siad (Mar. 3, 2016) (Sealed)
EXHIBIT P: Supplemental Privilege Log, Apr. 4, 2016
EXHIBIT Q: Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten
Deposition Limit, [REDACTED] v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.) (June 16, 2016)
iv
EFTA00028933
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document