EFTA00084764.pdf PDF
From: ' To:" Cc: ' ligisIYS)" >, ' (USANYS)" Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:19:28 +0000 Attachments: !Memo_of Law_ISO_Motion_to_Suppress_Evidence_Obtained_from_BSF_Subpo…
From: ' To:" Cc: ' ligisIYS)" >, ' (USANYS)" Subject: RE: Question re AJN/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:19:28 +0000 Attachments: !Memo_of Law_ISO_Motion_to_Suppress_Evidence_Obtained_from_BSF_Subpo…
…the asserted privileges 3 EFTA00209238 inapplicable, the court finds no legitimate compelling interest which warrants the continued suppression of this evidentiary material u…
…circumvented the requirements of Martindell and violated her due process rights by misleading Judge McMahon about the Government's prior communications with BSF. The Court finds that none of these arguments support suppression of evidence or justify an evidentiary hearing…
…encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the suppression of open questioning in order to protect ideas that are considered 'sacred.' Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance! Philosophical reflections aside, the prime reason I…
…to, if asked, make the disavowal statement regarding any MU employee (Participating or not) who purports to speak on ASU's behalf, right? That doesn't mean suppression, of course—just disavowal. Let me know what you think. Also, Prof…
…circumvented the requirements of Martindell and violated her due process rights by misleading Judge McMahon about the Government's prior communications with BSF. The Court finds that none of these arguments support suppression of evidence or justify an evidentiary hearing…
…to, if asked, make the disavowal statement regarding any ASU employee (Participating or not) who purports to speak on ASU's behalf, right? That doesn't mean suppression, of course—just disavowal. Let me know what you think. Also, Prof…
…circumvented the requirements of Martindell and violated her due process rights by misleading Judge McMahon about the Government's prior communications with BSF. The Court finds that none of these arguments support suppression of evidence or justify an evidentiary hearing…
…seal in this proceeding. Finding the asserted privileges inapplicable, the court finds no legitimate compelling interest which warrants the continued suppression of this evidentiary material under seal in this proceeding. See generally United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d…
…circumvented the requirements of Martindell and violated her due process rights by misleading Judge McMahon about the Government's prior communications with BSF. The Court finds that none of these arguments support suppression of evidence or justify an evidentiary hearing…
…pleadings, courts must balance "the plaintiff's right to privacy and security against the dual concerns of (1) public interest in identification of litigants and (2) harm to the defendant stemming from [suppression] of plaintiff's name." Doe v. Smith…
…in this proceeding. Finding the asserted privileges inapplicable, the court fords no legitimate compelling interest which warrants the continued suppression of this evidentiary material under seal in this proceeding. See generally United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez,428 F.3d 1015…
…whether to permit pseudonymous pleadings, courts must balance "the Plaintiffs right to privacy and security against the public's interest in identification of the litigants and the harm to the defendant stemming from suppression of Plaintiffs name." Doe v. Smith, …
…Depasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979) (affirming New York Court of Appeals decision to exclude press from criminal suppression hearing). Trial judges are entrusted with an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity. See id…
…simply because they might be offered against Ms. Maxwell in a criminal trial or might disadvantage her position in a pre-trial suppression motion.5 While Ms. Maxwell spends a considerable amount of time decrying the media attention that has…
…Maxwell’s ability to seek suppression (as she does in a series of motions filed today) will be compromised because the Government will argue that the release of the deposition transcript by this Court renders harmless any unconstitutional conduct by…