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: | (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></a>                        |  |
| Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hearing |                                         |  |

| From: | (USANYS) <                                               |  |
|-------|----------------------------------------------------------|--|
|       | Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:40 AM                  |  |
| To:   | (USANYS)                                                 |  |
| Cc:   | (USANYS) <a></a>                                         |  |
|       | Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hearing |  |

Can I see our original application to Judge Sweet? And I assume there was no transcript before Judge S?

| From:<br>(USANYS)                                                |            |  |  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--|--|
| Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:45 PM                             |            |  |  |
| (USANYS) <<br>To:                                                |            |  |  |
| Cc:<br>(USANYS)                                                  | (USANYS) < |  |  |
| Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hearing         |            |  |  |
| In the spirit of completeness, I'm also attaching their replies. |            |  |  |
| From:<br>(USANYS)                                                |            |  |  |
| Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:20 PM                             |            |  |  |
| To:<br>(USANYS)                                                  |            |  |  |
| Cc:<br>(USANYS)                                                  | (USANYS) < |  |  |
| Subject: Re: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hearing         |            |  |  |

## Goodness!

| Associate U.S. Attorney       |            |        |  |
|-------------------------------|------------|--------|--|
| Southern District of New York |            |        |  |
|                               |            |        |  |
|                               |            |        |  |
|                               |            |        |  |
| On Jun 15, 2021, at 5:06 PM,  | (USANYS) < | wrote: |  |

She filed 12 (!!) separate MOLs as a way to evade the Court's page limits. Defense attorneys have started doing that over the last few years.

| From:<br>(USANYS) <                                      |            |
|----------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:25 PM                     |            |
| To:<br>(USANYS)                                          |            |
| ;<br>Cc:<br>(USANYS)                                     | (USANYS) < |
| Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing |            |
| Dumb Q: why does Maxwell have two memos of law?          |            |
| From:<br>(USANYS)                                        |            |
| Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 2:19 PM                     |            |
| (USANYS) <<br>To:                                        |            |
| >;<br>(USANYS)<<br>Cc:                                   | (USANYS) < |
| Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing |            |

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 said that she will resolve the suppression motions "at a later time" ahead of trial. Thanks very much.



Subject: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing

We had an issue come up related to the upcoming suppression hearing (no date set yet, although we expect one) related to Rossmiller/Kramer that we'd like your thoughts on. Let us know a convenient time to stop by over the next few days, thanks.

Chief, Public Corruption Unit U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of New York