← Back to home

Document 253

AI Analysis

Summary: The letter, written by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, responds to the MDC's justification for confiscating Ghislaine Maxwell's confidential legal documents, arguing that it was unjustified and violated Maxwell's 6th Amendment rights. The letter requests the court to deny the MDC's request and order relief, including summoning the responsible guards to court and providing a copy of the video recording to defense counsel. The MDC is accused of failing to provide a legitimate explanation for the violation.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it highlights a significant issue regarding the violation of Ghislaine Maxwell's constitutional rights and attorney-client privilege, and requests the court to intervene and hold the MDC accountable.
Key Topics: Violation of Ghislaine Maxwell's 6th Amendment rights Confiscation of confidential legal documents by MDC staff Request for relief and accountability from the MDC
Key People:
  • Ghislaine Maxwell - Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
  • Bobbi C. Sternheim - Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
  • Alison J. Nathan - United States District Judge presiding over the case
  • Sophia Papapetru - MDC Legal Staff/Attorney
Document Type
Letter
Date
04/28/21
Pages
2
Folder
IMAGES002

Full Text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 253 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 2 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM 212-243-1100 * Main 917-306-6666 * Cell 888-587-4737 * Fax 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternheimlaw.com April 28, 2021 Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The MDC letter, dated April 28, 2021, submitted in response to the Court's memo-endorsed order to show cause (Dkt. 249), fails to address the concerns raised in my April 26th letter. The Court should summarily deny the MDC's request and require it to respond to the specifics in the Court's order. The claim that "[d]uring Ms. Maxwell's legal visit, staff noted she was in receipt of documents that were handed to her by the attorneys" does not justify the confiscation and review of Ms. Maxwell's confidential legal documents. Any documents which "Ms. Maxwell was in receipt" were documents that Ms. Maxwell brought to the visiting room. Counsel did not hand to Ms. Maxwell any documents that did not originate from Ms. Maxwell. Further, it was after Ms. Maxwell called counsel to report that her documents were seized and counsel, in turn, informed Ms. Maxwell that a complaint would be made that MDC staff contacted legal counsel. Once again, the Court is provided second-hand information from the MDC. Ms. Papapetru was not present during the legal visit, does not claim to have reviewed the video recording of the legal visit, and failed to provide any helpful or reliable information (either by way of an affidavit or declaration or a copy of the recording) to rebut the claims before the Court. A recycled reporting of the guards' inaccurate observation is an inadequate response to a significant problem. The MDC has failed to offer any legitimate, fact-based explanation for violation of Ms. Maxwell's 6th Amendment rights. The Court should disregard the MDC's response and order the relief requested on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. Considering the MDC's attempt to cast the conduct of its staff in a positive light while casting aspersions on Ms. Maxwell and counsel, we request that the Court direct that the guards responsible for the inappropriate seizure be summoned to Court and a copy of the video recording be provided to defense counsel. DOJ-OGR-00004048 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 253 Filed 04/28/21 Page 2 of 2 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM The MDC should be held accountable for its violation of Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights, her privilge of attorney-client confidentiality, and her right to protection of her confidential legal defense materials. Very truly yours, Bobbi C. Sternheim BOBBI C. STERNHEIM cc: All counsel of record MDC Legal Staff Sophia Papapetru, Esq. Nicole McFarland, Esq. John E. Wallace, Esq. 2 DOJ-OGR-00004049

Individual Pages

Page 1 - DOJ-OGR-00004048
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 253 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 2 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM 212-243-1100 * Main 917-306-6666 * Cell 888-587-4737 * Fax 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternheimlaw.com April 28, 2021 Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The MDC letter, dated April 28, 2021, submitted in response to the Court's memo-endorsed order to show cause (Dkt. 249), fails to address the concerns raised in my April 26th letter. The Court should summarily deny the MDC's request and require it to respond to the specifics in the Court's order. The claim that "[d]uring Ms. Maxwell's legal visit, staff noted she was in receipt of documents that were handed to her by the attorneys" does not justify the confiscation and review of Ms. Maxwell's confidential legal documents. Any documents which "Ms. Maxwell was in receipt" were documents that Ms. Maxwell brought to the visiting room. Counsel did not hand to Ms. Maxwell any documents that did not originate from Ms. Maxwell. Further, it was after Ms. Maxwell called counsel to report that her documents were seized and counsel, in turn, informed Ms. Maxwell that a complaint would be made that MDC staff contacted legal counsel. Once again, the Court is provided second-hand information from the MDC. Ms. Papapetru was not present during the legal visit, does not claim to have reviewed the video recording of the legal visit, and failed to provide any helpful or reliable information (either by way of an affidavit or declaration or a copy of the recording) to rebut the claims before the Court. A recycled reporting of the guards' inaccurate observation is an inadequate response to a significant problem. The MDC has failed to offer any legitimate, fact-based explanation for violation of Ms. Maxwell's 6th Amendment rights. The Court should disregard the MDC's response and order the relief requested on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. Considering the MDC's attempt to cast the conduct of its staff in a positive light while casting aspersions on Ms. Maxwell and counsel, we request that the Court direct that the guards responsible for the inappropriate seizure be summoned to Court and a copy of the video recording be provided to defense counsel. DOJ-OGR-00004048
Page 2 of 2 - DOJ-OGR-00004049
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 253 Filed 04/28/21 Page 2 of 2 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM The MDC should be held accountable for its violation of Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights, her privilge of attorney-client confidentiality, and her right to protection of her confidential legal defense materials. Very truly yours, Bobbi C. Sternheim BOBBI C. STERNHEIM cc: All counsel of record MDC Legal Staff Sophia Papapetru, Esq. Nicole McFarland, Esq. John E. Wallace, Esq. 2 DOJ-OGR-00004049