H A D D O N
Summary
H A D D O N MORGAN FOREMAN Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P C Jeffrey S. Paglluca August 9, 2020 VIA EMAIL Assistant United States Attorney The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 Re: Conferral Concerning Use of Discovery Materials GM_00000847-962 Dear Mr. ell is actively litigating issues related to disclosure of confidential material in v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) and a related appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 20-2413. We intend to ask Judge Nathan for permission to refer to and attach, as exhibits, the above referenced discovery materials which relate to the Government's efforts to obtain civil litigation discovery material ("the Unsealing Materials") in two, settled, civil matters in which Ms. Maxwell was named a defendant. These materials would be disclosed to Judge Preska and designated as part of the appendix to Ms. Maxwell's appeal in the Second Circuit. We have no obj
Persons Referenced (5)
“...equest further, your availability on August 10 or 11, 2020. Very truly yours, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca EFTA00101988”
Defense Counsel“...s point, to filing the materials under seal in both courts. In your letter to defense counsel dated August 5, 2020 you designated the Unsealing Materials as Confidential. W...”
United StatesUnited States AttorneyGhislaine MaxwellTags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
Ces2e.29-12,407413r3cliAlienDtidutinEl t310282 if663615/233/2174ig Plage aoat 9
Ces2e.29-12,407413r3cliAlienDtidutinEl t310282 if663615/233/2174ig Plage aoat 9 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN July 29, 2020 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P C Ty Gee 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 HI 303.832.2628 www.hmllaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two deposition transcripts were designated "Confidential" and subject to the protection of the Protective Order. Both transcripts ended up in the hands of the government, which used them to bring an indictment against Ms. Maxwell, charging her with, among other things, perjury in her deposition testimony. This is a serious violation
Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Pagel of 78
Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Pagel of 78 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PlaintiffiAppellee, Defendant-Appellant, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 15-CV-7433 (LAP) APPENDIX Volume IV of VIII (Pages App.-0777 to App.-0852) Ty Gee Adam Mueller HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. Attorneys or e en ant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00076383 Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Paget of 78 Docket Entries App.-0001 Order regarding Ms. Maxwell's Letter Motion to Reconsider July 23, 2020 Ruling, Dated July 29, 2020 (Dkt. 1079) App.-0777 Notice of Appeal, Dated July 29, 2020 (Dkt. 1081) App.-0781 Non-Redacted Declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley In Support of Plaintiff's
k7e2MaxC kjc
k7e2MaxC kjc UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Before: New York, N.Y. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) x Teleconference Arraignment Bail Hearing July 14, 2020 3:05 p.m. HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge APPEARANCES AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: Assistant United States Attorneys COHEN & GRESSER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: MARK S. COHEN CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA LAURA A. MENNINGER SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00066216 k7e2MaxC kjc THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Judge Nathan presiding. This is United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 330. I will tak
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (MN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO BOLES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00077571 Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Authorities ii Table of Exhibits iv Introduction and Summary of the Argument 1 I. The Facts 2 II. The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion. 6 A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible. 7 B. Assuming the Government's De
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
Subject: RE: Notification - Pretrial Services Intake
From: " To: Subject: RE: Notification - Pretrial Services Intake Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 14:11:09 +0000 Hi Hope you're doing well. Following up on our conversation from the other day, do you know yet who the assigned officer will be? Thanks, • • From: Sent: orirst, 20 8:45 PM To: Subject: Re: Notification - Pretrial Services Intake I'll call you now .S. Pretnal Services > On Jul 6, 2020, at 8:43 PM, == ) < 1=1.> wrote: > No worries at all— happy to do whichever is easiest for you. Would you prefer to speak this evening, or is tomorrow morning more convenient? Thanks! > Sent from my iPhone >> On Jul 6, 2020, at 8:40 PM, wrote: > I'm sorry I couldn't call earlier. I can speak now for a few minutes or try you first thing in the morning. Let me know what works best. >> U.S. Pretrial Services >>> On Jul 6, 2020, at 5:50 PM, == ) <ta wrote: >>> >» Hi >>> >>> Thanks very much -- is there a particular time you'd like to speak this evening? EFTA00102394 >» >»
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.