Epstein Secrets

y J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 [email protected] J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 [email protected] Id Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 26 EFTA00605140

524611 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Rent-A-Center Inc. v. 47 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp., 215 F.R.D. 100, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (McMahon, J.)); accord Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir. 2000) (" IGJood cause' depends on the diligence of the moving party.")

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

ng (USANYS) < (USANYS) < Per our discussion, I am attaching: (1) Maxwell's two briefs raising the suppression argument; (2) the transcript of the McMahon proceedings and her opinion (Ex D, E, G); (3) our brief (see pp 59-115); and (4) the exhibits we attached to our motion (Ex 4-7). Judge Nathan has s

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

ng (USANYS) < (USANYS) < Per our discussion, I am attaching: (1) Maxwell's two briefs raising the suppression argument; (2) the transcript of the McMahon proceedings and her opinion (Ex D, E, G); (3) our brief (see pp 59-115); and (4) the exhibits we attached to our motion (Ex 4-7). Judge Nathan has s

imum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell May Inquire into the Circumstances Surrounding the Government's Misrepresentation to Judge McMahon 26 Conclusion 27 Certificate of Service 29 EFTA00028930 --- PAGE BREAK --- Table of Authorities Cases Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 C

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

imum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell May Inquire into the Circumstances Surrounding the Government's Misrepresentation to Judge McMahon 26 Conclusion 27 Certificate of Service 29 EFTA00029101 --- PAGE BREAK --- Table of Authorities Cases Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 C

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