Epstein Secrets

From: (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:53 AM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Another Q: who's Stan Pottinger? From: (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:53 AM To: (USANYS) Cc: (USANYS)<Mal> Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hear

k From: (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:58 AM To: (USANYS) < Cc: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Pottinger was a lawyer at Boies Schiller who represented the plaintiff in the civil action. The two letters we submitted in connection with our All Writs App

Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:58 AM To: (USANYS) < Cc: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Pottinger was a lawyer at Boies Schiller who represented the plaintiff in the civil action. The two letters we submitted in connection with our All Writs Application are attached. From:

From: (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:53 AM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Another Q: who's Stan Pottinger? From: (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, lune 16, 2021 10:53 AM To: (USANYS) Cc: (USANYS) <a> Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Heari

2019-02-28,_JE,_letter re_all_writs_act_application,_15_Civ_7433_(RWS).pdf; 2019-02- 28, JEJetter_re_all_writs_act_application,_17_Civ_0616_(SN).pdf Pottinger was a lawyer at Boies Schiller who represented the plaintiff in the civil action. The two letters we submitted in connection with our All Writs App

all_writs_act_application,_15_Civ_7433_(RWS).pdf; 2019-02- 28, JEJetter_re_all_writs_act_application,_17_Civ_0616_(SN).pdf Pottinger was a lawyer at Boies Schiller who represented the plaintiff in the civil action. The two letters we submitted in connection with our All Writs Application are attached. From:

18 IV. The Remedy for the Government's Misconduct 20 A. Pursuant to its Inherent Power, this Court Should Suppress the Evidence Obtained from Boies Schiller and Dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the Fruits of that Evidence. 20 B. At a Minimum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell Ma

ew all of this and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when he claimed the investigation first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true.

d McCawlpa Pottinger, Brad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA talked to about her contacts with attorneys. Most conspicuous, of course, is the gove

ew all of this and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when he claimed the investigation first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true.

wle , Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA talked to about her contacts with attorneys. Most conspicuous, of course, is the gove