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) | |
| Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hearing |
| From: | (USANYS) < | |
|---|---|---|
| Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:40 AM | ||
| To: | (USANYS) | |
| Cc: | (USANYS) | |
| 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: (USANYS) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:45 PM | |||
| (USANYS) < To: | |||
| Cc: (USANYS) | (USANYS) < | ||
| Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hearing | |||
| In the spirit of completeness, I’m also attaching their replies. | |||
| From: (USANYS) | |||
| Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:20 PM | |||
| To: (USANYS) | |||
| Cc: (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: (USANYS) < | |
|---|---|
| Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:25 PM | |
| To: (USANYS) | |
| ; Cc: (USANYS) | (USANYS) < |
| Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing | |
| Dumb Q: why does Maxwell have two memos of law? | |
| From: (USANYS) | |
| Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 2:19 PM | |
| (USANYS) < To: | |
| >; (USANYS)< 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¶