DOJ-OGR-00009490.jpg
472 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal exhibit
File Size:
472 KB
Summary
This document is page 71 of 117 from a court filing (Exhibit A-5914) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on Feb 24, 2022. The content is a transcript from a different legal proceeding (likely a tax fraud case involving Deutsche Bank) where attorney Mr. Shechtman argues about 'ineffective assistance' and 'prejudice,' comparing the situations of a Mr. Parse and Mr. Brubaker. The text discusses bank records, backdating allegations, and the cross-examination of a government cooperator by the Kramer Levin firm.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Shechtman | Attorney |
Speaker arguing the case, discussing the 'prejudice prong' and defending a client.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding official acknowledging Shechtman's argument.
|
| Judge Easterbrook | Judge |
Cited by Shechtman regarding legal doctrines on waiver and ineffective assistance.
|
| Mr. Parse | Defendant/Subject |
Subject of the legal argument; compared to Mr. Brubaker.
|
| Mr. Brubaker | Subject |
Person compared to Mr. Parse regarding their legal situation and proof against them.
|
| Jenkins lawyer | Attorney |
Mentioned in relation to dealing with a government cooperator.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kramer Levin firm |
Law firm mentioned as having cross-examined a government cooperator.
|
|
| Deutsche Bank |
Bank whose records are being discussed regarding backdating.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ (Department of Justice) |
Implied by the 'DOJ-OGR' stamp.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-02-24
Filing of the document in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Court
February and March (Year unspecified)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
likely Southern District of New York, implied by court reporter stamp.
|
Relationships (2)
Mr. Parse is not situated that much differently than Mr. Brubaker
I think it is that that Judge Easterbrook had in mind
Key Quotes (4)
"Mr. Parse is not situated that much differently than Mr. Brubaker, and the proof as it came in didn't come in much differently."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009490.jpg
Quote #1
"What distinguishes these two men is the, quote, backdate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009490.jpg
Quote #2
"I don't think that's what the Deutsche Bank records show."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009490.jpg
Quote #3
"They are doing these in February and March and putting them on February and March statements and they're putting 'as of.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009490.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,631 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1616-3 Filed 02/24/22 Page 71 of 117
A-5914
A-5914
12
CAC3PARC
1 where you can have waiver, but ineffective assistance. And I
2 think it is that that Judge Easterbrook had in mind when he
3 said you have to think about each of these doctrines separately
4 and you can probably have every combination of them.
5 THE COURT: All right.
6 MR. SHECHTMAN: Look, on the prejudice prong, I would
7 just say this. There were acquittals on all but two of these
8 counts. Mr. Parse is not situated that much differently than
9 Mr. Brubaker, and the proof as it came in didn't come in much
10 differently. There is a sort of lovely irony here that the
11 government cooperator who the Jenkins lawyer dealt with him was
12 actually a witness, and so, the Kramer Levin firm got to
13 cross-examine him. And in a sense having him as a cooperator
14 was helpful to their side because they established that their
15 client, like the taxpayers and everyone else, was told
16 repeatedly this is lawful. What distinguishes these two men is
17 the, quote, backdate.
18 And what I've tried to say in my papers is I think the
19 government was very good at trial in turning this into a
20 backdating case. I don't think that's what the Deutsche Bank
21 records show. They are doing these in February and March and
22 putting them on February and March statements and they're
23 putting "as of." They're then going out to what are very
24 accomplished tax preparers who were getting February, March
25 statements. And know there was a mistake and are then filing
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
CAC3PARC
1 where you can have waiver, but ineffective assistance. And I
2 think it is that that Judge Easterbrook had in mind when he
3 said you have to think about each of these doctrines separately
4 and you can probably have every combination of them.
5 THE COURT: All right.
6 MR. SHECHTMAN: Look, on the prejudice prong, I would
7 just say this. There were acquittals on all but two of these
8 counts. Mr. Parse is not situated that much differently than
9 Mr. Brubaker, and the proof as it came in didn't come in much
10 differently. There is a sort of lovely irony here that the
11 government cooperator who the Jenkins lawyer dealt with him was
12 actually a witness, and so, the Kramer Levin firm got to
13 cross-examine him. And in a sense having him as a cooperator
14 was helpful to their side because they established that their
15 client, like the taxpayers and everyone else, was told
16 repeatedly this is lawful. What distinguishes these two men is
17 the, quote, backdate.
18 And what I've tried to say in my papers is I think the
19 government was very good at trial in turning this into a
20 backdating case. I don't think that's what the Deutsche Bank
21 records show. They are doing these in February and March and
22 putting them on February and March statements and they're
23 putting "as of." They're then going out to what are very
24 accomplished tax preparers who were getting February, March
25 statements. And know there was a mistake and are then filing
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009490
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document