Epstein Secrets

ES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P 17(c)(3) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi . Stemheim A

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P 17(c)(3) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C

f the Protocol. See Co-Executors' Corrections to Attorney General's Status Report on Voluntary Compensation Program and Renewed Request for Ruling, Fanner v. Indyke, No. 19-cv-10475-LGS-DCF, Dkt. 73-1. 1. Specificity The Protocol establishes a process that all claimants must follow. The "Claimant" mus

VILEGED DOCUMENTS Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN. P.C. East 101h Ave

GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-RWS DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN. P.C. East 101h Avenue Denver. CO 80203 EFTA00618132 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 191 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 1

date of its production on April 28, 2016 and dated in a manner to attempt to justify the privilege claim. A similar undated letter was invented for Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman (FJW), P.L, and co-counsel, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Menninger Decl., Ex. L. It states: Again, while the l

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. 123 EFTA

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are am

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sanvari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

." United States v. Berger, 188 F. Supp. 2d 307, 328-39 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). But "[t]he standard for granting a motion for reconsideration `is strict.' Fanner v. United States, No. 12-CR-758/15-cv-6287 (MN), 2017 WL 3448014, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2017) (quoting Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partner

t, no later than October I I, the government disclose the specific co-conspirator statements it intends to admit at trial. Respectfully Submitted, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) EFTA00029594