Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00079616DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: '

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00079616
Pages
2
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

From: ' To: ' Cc: [Contractor]" Contractor]" Subject: Drives for Maxwell's defense counsel Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 23:08:09 +0000 Attachments: All _ GM MDC Productions_ for_ Defense Counsel Index.xlsx Embedded: Copy_of production_from_PAE.msg M, thank you so much, again, for going into the office tomorrow to get these drives started! Attached is an Excel index of everything that needs to be copied onto the drives defense counsel supplied us. Below, please find clarifying notes about where to find the requisite materials please let us know if something is missing or shouldn't be included. Thanks so much, all! • All items from the shared that are outlined on the attached Excel index o Note: Due to space constraints, the Sixth Production was not stamped on the shared.=was making a hard drive copy of everything we sent to Maxwell at MDC on 11/09/2020, and the stamped Sixth Production should be included on that drive copy. He should have that hard drive copy ready by now, f

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: ' To: ' Cc: [Contractor]" Contractor]" Subject: Drives for Maxwell's defense counsel Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 23:08:09 +0000 Attachments: All _ GM MDC Productions_ for_ Defense Counsel Index.xlsx Embedded: Copy_of production_from_PAE.msg M, thank you so much, again, for going into the office tomorrow to get these drives started! Attached is an Excel index of everything that needs to be copied onto the drives defense counsel supplied us. Below, please find clarifying notes about where to find the requisite materials please let us know if something is missing or shouldn't be included. Thanks so much, all! All items from the shared that are outlined on the attached Excel index o Note: Due to space constraints, the Sixth Production was not stamped on the shared.=was making a hard drive copy of everything we sent to Maxwell at MDC on 11/09/2020, and the stamped Sixth Production should be included on that drive copy. He should have that hard drive copy ready by now, for us to use. o If it's not ready yet has a copy of the stamped Sixth Production on her local drive and can try to upload it to the shared tomorrow morning. All responsive items marked CONFIDENTIAL from our device review (this makes up one part of Production 6 that is not on the shared) o Note should have these stamped items on the hard drive copy he was making (the same referenced above) SDNY_PROD008, PROD009, PROD011, PROD012, and PROD013 from PAE (this makes up the other part of Production 6 that is not on the shared) o Note:= should have these stamped items on the hard drive copy he was making (the same referenced above) All items (PROD015 - PART 01 through PART 07, and PROD016) from the most recent drive that PAE should have sent to me (this makes up the part of Production 7 that is not on the shared) o Note: As of Friday 11/20, I had not yet received this drive. was going to coordinate (see attached email) getting a drive to PAE for them to then send out to me. TLDR; -- Everything we need to provide defense counsel with is either on A) the drive copylMlmade for us, B) the shared, or C) the (hopefully forthcoming) drive from PAE. Given the breadth of the hard drive copy that made, we should begin copying from there, as it includes most of the requisite items. Because we removed all highly confidential items from Maxwell's productions, there should be no highly confidential items included anywhere on these drives that we will return to defense. Given how many hours it took to load the Sixth Production alone, I'm guessing this will be a multi-day copy job as well, and given the volume, we might need some help from =. Thanks again, M, and I'll be online working from home starting at 8:00am tomorrow, so please call me anytime if you want to discuss! Paralegal Specialist U.S. Attorney's Office I SDNY 1 St. Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Office: Cell: EFTA00079616 EFTA00079617

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject:

From: To: Subject: - u is airs ews ne Ing e nes ay, u y 29, 2020 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:25:50 +0000 c Importan e: Normal Mobile version and searchable archives available at fbi.bulletinintelligence.com. 1B1 News Briefing TO: THE DIRECTOR AND SENIOR STAFF DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020 6:30 AM EDT TODAY'S TABLE OF CONTENTS LEADING THE NEWS • Barr Spars With Democrats At Contentious House Hearing. • Barr Says Democrats Have Tried To "Discredit" Him. • Barr Says Bash Investigating "High Number Of Unmaskings" During Obama Administration. PROTESTS • Memo Reveals Federal Agents Sought Role In Suppressing Protests Since Start. • New Mexico Governor Addresses Concerns About Federal Agents In Albuquerque. • Report: US, Oregon In Talks About Pulling Agents From Portland. • Portland Fines Federal Government For Unpermitted Fence Outside Courthouse. • US Park Police Head: Decision To Clear Protesters Not Linked To Trump "Photo Op." • Hundreds Of Cases Involving LAPD Off

47p
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

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
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00039421 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4 1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts 5 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts 9 B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant

239p

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.