From: (USANYS)"
To: |(USANYS)" <

Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 19:54:46 +0000

Attachments: Ex._H_Sealed.pdf

Here it is — Ex H.

From: <empty> (USANYS) <<empty> >
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 3:45 PM
To: <empty> (USANYS) <
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing

And can you send me MJ Netbum's decision? Exhibit Ito the def motion, I think

From: <empty> (USANYS) <<empty> >
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:58 AM
To: <empty> (USANYS) <
Cc: <empty> (USANYS) <
Subject: RE: Question re AIN/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 Application are attached.

From: <empty> (USANYS) <<empty> >
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:53 AM
To: <empty> (USANYS) <
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing

Another Q: who's Stan Pottinger?

Email Header Information:

*   **From:** (USANYS)
*   **Sent:** Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:53 AM
*   **To:** (USANYS)
*   **Cc:** (USANYS)
*   **Subject:** RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing

- From: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
- Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:40 AM
- To: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
- Cc: [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]>
- 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?

EFTA00015277

Key information from the image:

*   Two emails, both sent on Tuesday, June 15, 2021.
*   Both emails discuss a question regarding the AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing.
*   Sender & receiver USANYS.
*   Associate U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York.

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.

Email communication:

*   **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?

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| From | [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]> |
| Sent | Tuesday, June 15, 2021 — 2:19 PM |
| To | [REDACTED] (USANYS) <[REDACTED]> |
| Cc | Multiple recipients — [REDACTED] (USANYS) (several addresses redacted) |
| Subject | RE: Question re AIN/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.

From: <empty> (USANYS) <
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:09 AM
To: <empty> (USANYS) <

EFTA00015278

Cc: <empty> (USANYS) <<empty>>; <empty> (USANYS) <<empty>>
Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing

Sure, set a time other than 2:00. I'm in the office. Or Webex

From: <empty> (USANYS) <<empty>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 9:11 AM
To: <empty> (USANYS) <
Cc: <empty> (USANYS) <
Subject: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing

Hi

We had an issue come up related to the upcoming suppression hearing (no date set yet, although we expect one) related to 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

EFTA00015279