Subpoena
Summary
goa U.S. Department of Justice fo 25) United States Attorney BQ pb) District of Delaware The ree Bing 1313 Marker Sect, Sue 40 I pe Bers 1099: raxlan roi May 15,2019 IP Morgan Chase Bank Aun: Subpoena Processing National Subpoena Processing Center 7610 W. Washington St. Mail Code IN 1-4054 Indianapolis, IN 46231-1335 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena 19-3-LFWS-V-32 To Whom it May Concern: Attached is a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Federal Grand Jury requiring the production of certain specified it
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
Cotterman Cert Petition
No. 13-186 In the Supreme Court of the United States HOWARD W. COTTERMAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that because the documents sought by the subpoena were previously subject to a protective order, the Government obtained them in violation of her rights against compelled self-incrimination, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to due process of law. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the evidence should not be suppressed and that Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. I. Background In late 2015, sued Maxwell for defamation. See v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). alleged that Maxwell defamed her by accusing her of lying
Usg-Lavabit-Unsealed
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-sw-00522-CMH-1 Case title: USA v. In Re: Information Associated Date Filed: 07/16/2013 Date Terminated: 03/24/2015 with [Redacted] Assigned to: District Judge Claude M. Hilton Appeals court case number: 13-4625 Defendant (1) In Re: Information Associated with [Redacted] TERMINATED: 03/24/2015 Pending Counts Disposition None Highest Offense Level (Opening) None Terminated Counts Disposition None
Deferred prosecution agreement
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. FIRSTENERGY CORP., Defendant. CASE NO. ____________ JUDGE BLACK DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT The United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio (“USAO-SDOH” or “government”) and the Defendant, FirstEnergy Corp., by its undersigned representative and counsel, pursuant to the authority granted by the Board of Directors, agree as follows: 1. Criminal Information
Order on Epstein Grand Jury Material
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -vGHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 20 Cr. 330 (PAE) OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On December 29, 2021, a jury convicted defendant Ghislaine Maxwell of five felonies involving the sexual abuse of young girls that she and the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein committed between 1994 and 2004. This decision resolves the Government’s July 18, 2025 motion to unseal grand jury transcri
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that because the documents sought by the subpoena were previously subject to a protective order, the Government obtained them in violation of her rights against compelled self-incrimination, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to due process of law. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the evidence should not be suppressed and that Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. I. Background In late 2015, sued Maxwell for defamation. See v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). alleged that Maxwell defamed her by accusing her of lying
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.