Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00015825DOJ Data Set 8Correspondence

EFTA00015825

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 8
Reference
efta-efta00015825
Pages
0
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Loading PDF viewer...

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: David Oscar Markus aa> To: (USANYS)" Cc: r>, Subject: Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 01:23:56 +0000 If you are filing that one unredacted pleading, would you be willing to file the others as well? I think the court should have them all. Let me know if you will include the others. Thanks, David --David Oscar Markus Markus/Moss markuslaw.com On Apr 9, 2021, at 6:25 PM, David Oscar Markus a wrote: Hi= No objection. Have a nice weekend. David. --David Oscar Markus Markus/Moss markuslaw.com On Apr 9, 2021, at 6:21 PM, (USANYS) a wrote: David, We intend to submit a motion to seek leave to file an unredacted copy of Exhibit F under seal and need to indicate your position. Do you consent to this request? Thanks' EFTA00015825 From: David Oscar Markus Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 6:35 PM To: (USANYS) Cc: Subject: Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell Thanks. I won't ask to shorten the 10 days if the government doesn't plan on asking for an extension. —dm --David Oscar Markus Markus/Moss markuslaw.com On Apr 1, 2021, at 6:07 PM, > wrote: (USANYS) < We do not oppose the Court expediting consideration but do oppose any request to shorten the ten days by which we have to respond. From: David Oscar Markus Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 5:59 PM To: (USANYS) Cc: Subject: Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell Both. --David Oscar Markus Markus/Moss markuslaw.com On Apr 1, 2021, at 5:33 PM, David, (USANYS) a> wrote: Are you asking to expedite the Court's consideration of the appeal or asking to shorten our timeline for responding? Thanks, From: David Oscar Markus Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 5:27 PM To: Cc: (USANYS) c ) Subject: Re: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell Counsel: EFTA00015826 What is the government's position on expediting the appeal? Thank you. David --David Oscar Markus Markus/Moss markuslaw.com On Mar 25, 2021, at 7:11 PM, wrote: David, Thanks for letting us know that you'll be counsel on this appeal. As an initial matter, the majority of the docket entries you've referenced do not appear to be redacted. In any event, you may obtain these materials from defense counsel — I've copied them here. This case is already governed by a protective order (ECF No. 36), which is binding on all counsel. Thanks, Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 (212) 63 From: David Oscar Markus Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 5:33 PM To: •= > (USANYS) Subject: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell Good afternoon counsel: ) I have been engaged to represent Ghislaine Maxwell in her appeal from the denial of her third application for bail. In preparing this appeal, I will need access to certain unredacted documents, including docket entries 4, 18, 22, 97, 100, 103, 106, 159, 160, 165, 171, 169. Do you have any objection to me having access to these unredacted documents? (There may be additional documents that I need, but I have not identified them as of yet.) I'm happy to enter into a protective order with the government if you believe EFTA00015827 that is necessary. I plan on filing the appeal next week, so I would appreciate it if you could get back to me as soon as possible. Thank you, David --David Oscar Markus markuslaw.corn EFTA00015828

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00020437

0p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00020439

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 28, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter with respect to the protective order to be entered in the above-captioned case, and to respond to the defendant's letter and submission of July 27, 2020 (the "Defendant Letter" or "Def. Ltr.") (Dkt. 29). The Government and defense counsel have conferred regarding a protective order several times via telephone and email between July 9, 2020, and today, including as recently as this morning. The Government and defense counsel have come to an agreement on much of the proposed protective order. However, the parties

7p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
House OversightUnknown

Defense Claims DOJ Official Misrepresented Deferred Prosecution Agreement Modifications in Epstein Case

Defense Claims DOJ Official Misrepresented Deferred Prosecution Agreement Modifications in Epstein Case The passage outlines a dispute over a purported modification to Jeffrey Epstein's Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) by U.S. Attorney Paul Acosta and SDFL prosecutor Michael Sloman. It suggests possible procedural misconduct or bad‑faith tactics by DOJ officials, which could be a concrete lead for further FOIA requests, interview of the attorneys involved, and review of the December 19, 2007 letter. While the actors are high‑profile (U.S. Attorney, federal prosecutors), the claim is not novel and lacks specific evidence of wrongdoing beyond contradictory statements, placing it in the strong‑lead range. Key insights: Sloman threatened to terminate the DPA unless Epstein complied with a 'unilateral modification' that defense says was never formally agreed to.; The defense asserts the December 19, 2007 letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta only proposed changes, which were rejected by defense counsel.; The SDFL allegedly refused to provide needed information for Epstein to meet the alleged new pleading and sentencing requirements.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' To:' 1111 Cc: ' >, Subject: Re: RE: Epstein search warrant documents Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 19:13:54 +0000 Importance: Normal and I just spoke. We are going to down and take a look at all digital evidence and get this squared away. I'm going to work on getting a large enough hard drive to dump the evidence on to get it to SDNY. From: Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:39 PM To: Cc: Subject: Fwd: RE: Epstein search warrant documents I know you already got this, just wanted to confer with you as to what is going on with all this. Feel like you, me, and need to chat and see what is what. I'm thinking that this started before the case took a turn yet is still moving in the same direction. In other words, do we really need to be doing this? Seems to me that I should be taking all my marching orders from and M. NY CART Coordinator Senior Forensic Examiner cell desk From: (USANYS)" Forwarded message Date: Jun 17, 2020 2:28 PM Subject: RE: Epstein search war

14p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.