From: "SE UsANYS) To: i UsANYs) Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:58:13 +0000 Attachments: 2019-02-28, JE, letter_re_all_writs_act_application, 15 Civ_7433_(RWS).pdf; 2019-02- 28, JE, letter_re_all_writs_act_application, 17 Civ_0616_ (SN).pdf Pottinger was a lawyer at Boies Schiller who represented EEE, the plaintiff in the civil action. The two letters we submitted in connection with our All Writs Application are attached. From: a (USANYS) <i Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:53 AM To: ES (SANS) <i Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Another Q: who’s Stan Pottinger? From: as (USANYS) <i Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:53 AM To: A (SANS) <a Ce: AS (USANYS) <i Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing From: SS (USANYS) <i Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:40 AM To: A (USANYS) <i Ce: TS (USANYS) <i Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Can I see our original application to Judge Sweet? And I assume there was no transcript before Judge S? From: TS (USANYS) <i 7 Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:45 PM To: A (SANS) <r Ce: AS (USANYS) i; IS (SAN YS) <i Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing In the spirit of completeness, I’m also attaching their replies. From: TS (SANS) <i sere Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:20 PM 1 a (USANYS) Ce: TS (SANS) i; TS (SAYS) <a Subject: Re: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing EFTA00032757

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Goodness! Associate U.S. Attorney Southern District of New York On Jun 15, 2021, at 5:06 PM, [iy (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: aS (SANS) <r sere Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:25 PM 0: AS (SANS) <i Cc: A (USANYS) i; I (SAS) <r Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Dumb Q: why does Maxwell have two memos of law? From: TS (USANYS) <i Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 2:19 PM o: A (SANS) <i Ce: TS (USANYS) i; I (SANS) <i Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Per our discussion, | 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. From: SS (USANYS) <i Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:09 AM 1 EL AS) Ce: TS (USANYS) i; I (SANS) <a Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Sure, set a time other than 2:00. I’m in the office. Or Webex From: a (USANYS) <i Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 9:11 AM 0: A (SANS) <i Cc: TS (USANYS) i; a (SAS) <i Subject: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Hi EFTA00032758

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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 EFTA00032759