DOJ-OGR-00008265.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document532 Filed 12/09/21 Page1of8 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C Jeffrey S. Pagliuca oO 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com joagliuca@hmflaw.com HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN December 8, 2021 VIA Email The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: — United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan, This is at least the third attempt by the government to admit an unreliable exhibit of unknown origin. The problems are manifold, as this Court is aware. When the government last sought admission, after the testimony of Juan Alessi, this Court reserved ruling, recognizing that Mr. Alessi had neither authenticated Exhibit 52 nor laid the required foundation for its admission under Rule 803(6). Rest assured, promised the government, it would fill in the blanks through the testimony of Employee-1. But the government no longer plans to call Employee-1 as a witness, so it’s left with a record this Court already deemed inadequate to justify admission of the exhibit. Undeterred, the government now, for the very first time, points to something else—Ms. Maxwell’s April 2016 civil deposition. The government claims that Ms. Maxwell’s deposition testimony authenticates Exhibit 52. The government is wrong, for at least two obvious reasons. First, the exhibit Ms. Maxwell was shown in her deposition (Deposition Exhibit 13) is not the same thing as Exhibit DOJ-OGR-00008265