Peter Skinner
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
LLP
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigrid McCawley
|
Business associate |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Sigrid McCawley
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
AUSA [Redacted]
|
Contacted corresponded with |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Sandra Perkins
|
Professional |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Meeting and Contacts with Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, and Brad Edwards by AUSA [REDACTED]. | N/A | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Meeting | Meetings took place between attorneys for accusing witnesses and SDNY prosecutors concerning or r... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2016-02-29 | N/A | Meeting between Epstein victims' attorneys (Pottinger, Edwards, Skinner) and a female AUSA (likel... | SDNY Office | View |
| 2016-02-29 | N/A | Meeting between U.S. Attorney's Office and civil attorneys (Boies, Edwards, etc.) regarding alleg... | U.S. Attorney's Office | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Meeting | Meetings took place where certain attorneys for accusing witnesses met with SDNY prosecutors to a... | Southern District of New York | View |
EFTA00029499.pdf
This document is an internal email chain from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) dated October 2020, discussing a press inquiry from the NY Daily News. The reporter, Stephen Rex Brown, provides details of a story alleging that in 2016, SDNY prosecutors (specifically an AUSA named Kramer) met with victims' lawyers but declined to pursue new charges against Jeffrey Epstein or perjury charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. The internal SDNY response suggests they have no record of the second meeting mentioned and decide not to push back against the story.
EFTA00029100.pdf
This legal filing is a Reply Memorandum by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing for the suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges based on government misconduct. The defense asserts that prosecutors misled Chief Judge McMahon about the extent of their prior coordination with civil attorneys (Boies Schiller Flexner) to obtain a grand jury subpoena, thereby circumventing a civil protective order. The document details a specific meeting on February 29, 2016, where civil attorneys 'pitched' the prosecution of Maxwell and provided documents, including flight records (though the specific flight data is not listed in this text), which the prosecution later failed to disclose to the judge.
EFTA00028929.pdf
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.
EFTA00022958.pdf
This document is an email thread from July 30, 2020, initiated by an automated PacerPro notification regarding a 'Motion to Stay' filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 20-02413). Sigrid McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP forwarded this notification to colleagues (including Peter Skinner), stating that she would respond to the motion by the following day.
EFTA00020699.pdf
This document is an email thread from April 2019 involving Boies Schiller Flexner LLP regarding a Grand Jury Subpoena. The correspondence discusses a sealed order from the Southern District of New York granting BSF permission to produce confidential discovery materials from the case '[Redacted] v. Maxwell' (likely Giuffre v. Maxwell) in response to the subpoena. It explicitly notes that the order does not apply to other litigation such as 'In re Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein'.
EFTA00020697.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 15, 2019, between Peter Skinner (likely representing Boies Schiller Flexner) and a redacted sender (likely a federal prosecutor). The correspondence concerns a Grand Jury subpoena served on BSF regarding the 'Guiffre v. Maxwell' civil case. The redacted sender provides a sealed order granting BSF permission to turn over 'CONFIDENTIAL' discovery materials to the Grand Jury, while explicitly noting this order does not apply to the 'Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein' litigation.
EFTA00017068.pdf
This document is an email chain dated July 30, 2020, in which Sigrid McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP forwards a PacerPro notification to a redacted recipient and Peter Skinner. The notification concerns a 'Motion to Stay' filed that day on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 20-02413). McCawley indicates she intends to respond to the motion by the following day.
EFTA00011418.pdf
This document is a discovery request letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel, Cohen & Gresser LLP, to the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, dated October 13, 2020. The defense requests a wide range of materials including exculpatory Brady evidence, information on Minor Victims 1-3, communications regarding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, and records of coordination between the government and civil attorneys representing Epstein's accusers. The letter also requests specific FBI files, unredacted reports, and evidence related to the credibility and potential financial motives of government witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00002725.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is a request for the production of documents related to defense motions in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It seeks all communications concerning the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein, including those between various government agencies and Epstein's lawyers. The request also demands communications from meetings in 2016 and 2018 where attorneys for Epstein's victims urged the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to launch a criminal investigation into both Epstein and Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing arguing that a subpoena issued by a defendant should be quashed. The filing contends that the subpoena fails to meet the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), as established in the case United States v. Nixon, because it is an overly broad "fishing expedition" seeking "all communications" with various individuals from the law firm Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP.
RE: legal process, regarding In re Guiffre v. Maxwell, 15...
Notification regarding a sealed order allowing BSF to comply with a grand jury subpoena by producing confidential discovery materials from the Maxwell case.
RE: legal process, regarding In re Guiffre v. Maxwell, 15...
Acknowledgement: 'We'll review this and get back to you.'
RE: legal process, regarding In re [Redacted] v. Maxwell,...
Discussing a grand jury subpoena directed to BSF in connection with the Maxwell case. Providing a sealed order granting permission to comply with the subpoena by producing confidential materials.
Email string with Peter Skinner and AUSA
Email string cc'ing Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity