DOJ-OGR-00002759.jpg
688 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing cover letter
File Size:
688 KB
Summary
A legal cover letter dated March 15, 2021, from attorneys Cohen and Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter lists ten reply memoranda being filed on behalf of their client, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. These filings relate to motions to dismiss indictments, suppress evidence (involving a redacted subpoena target), sever counts, and request a bill of particulars.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mark S. Cohen | Attorney |
Partner at Cohen & Gresser LLP representing Ghislaine Maxwell
|
| Christian R. Everdell | Attorney |
Partner at Cohen & Gresser LLP representing Ghislaine Maxwell
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
The Honorable Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Client of Cohen & Gresser LLP, subject of the indictment
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cohen & Gresser LLP |
Law firm representing the defendant
|
|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Court jurisdiction handling the case
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by the footer stamp DOJ-OGR
|
Timeline (1 events)
March 15, 2021
Filing of ten reply memoranda in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Address of Cohen & Gresser LLP
|
|
|
Address of the United States District Court
|
Relationships (2)
Letter states 'On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell'
Listed as attorney on letterhead for the firm representing Maxwell
Key Quotes (3)
"On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we will be filing the following reply memoranda with accompanying exhibits"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002759.jpg
Quote #1
"Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002759.jpg
Quote #2
"Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government’s Subpoena to [REDACTED]"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002759.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,963 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 166 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 2
C&G COHEN & GRESSER LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
+1 212 957 7600 phone
www.cohengresser.com
C&G COHEN & GRESSER LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
+1 212 957 7600 phone
www.cohengresser.com
Mark S. Cohen
Christian R. Everdell
+1 (212) 957-7600
mcohen@cohengresser.com
ceverdell@cohengresser.com
Christian R. Everdell
+1 (212) 957-7600
mcohen@cohengresser.com
ceverdell@cohengresser.com
March 15, 2021
VIA ECF
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan:
On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we will be filing the following reply memoranda with accompanying exhibits:
1. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement
2. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred
3. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government’s Subpoena to [REDACTED] and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six
4. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements Are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law
5. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Severance of and Separate Trial on Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment
6. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Superseding Indictment
7. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay
8. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Either Count One or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous
9. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as It Was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment
10. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures
2. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred
3. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government’s Subpoena to [REDACTED] and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six
4. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements Are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law
5. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Severance of and Separate Trial on Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment
6. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Superseding Indictment
7. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay
8. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Either Count One or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous
9. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as It Was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment
10. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures
DOJ-OGR-00002759
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document