EFTA00028929.pdf

Type: pdf
Source set: data-set-8
Extracted text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 
x 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
v. 
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 
Defendant. 
x 
20 Cr. 330 (MN) 
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL 
IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO 
SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA 
TO BOLES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX 
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca 
Laura A. Menninger 
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 
Christian R. Everdell 
COHEN & GRESSER LLP 
Bobbi C. Stemheim 
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 
EFTA00028929


Table of Contents 
Table of Contents 
Fable of Authorities 
ii 
Table of Exhibits 
iv 
Introduction and Summary of the Argument 
1 
I. 
The Facts 
2 
II. 
The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion. 
6 
A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible.  
7 
B. 
Assuming the Government's Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the Government 
Still Misled the Court. 
17 
III. 
The Materiality of the Government's False Statements.  
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 May Inquire 
into the Circumstances Surrounding the Government's Misrepresentation to 
Judge McMahon 
26 
Conclusion 
27 
Certificate of Service 
29 
EFTA00028930


Table of Authorities 
Cases 
Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313 
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006) 
8 
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) 
24 
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 
11 
v. Maxwel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019) 
19, 20 
Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 
 14, 18, 19 
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) 
20 
Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v. Commonwealth Mgmt. Assocs., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805 
(S.D.N.Y. 2001) 
25 
Franks v. Delawar…
Open in the interactive archive →