Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 253 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 2 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIA 212-243-1100 © Main 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor 917-306-6666 ° Cell New York, New York 10011 888-587-4737 ° Fax [email protected] 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 26" 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]Juring 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 6 Amendment rights. The Court should