Epstein Secrets

hislaine Maxwell In Opposition to the Government's Motion for Detention EFTA00093089 cimil lyZ7lbifistuxtriitridcdniZAliPlOs%dV*719A)Pkje'hetffW1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. • • • • x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OF GHIS

e Mufti) Sates' Court of 5Appeats for the £ieconb (Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Appellant. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 20-CR-330 (MN) Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for Pretrial Release David Oscar Markus MARKUS/MOSS PL

d that defendants rebutted the presumption and imposed appropriately strict bail conditions in cases involving alleged offenses against minors. See Deutsch, 2020 WL 3577398, at *5-6; United States v. Veres, No. 3:20-CR-18-.1-32JBT, 2020 WL 1042051, at *34 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020); Conway, 2011 WL 34213

421321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011) 10, 18 United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) 1 I United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020) II, 18 United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Mass. 1990) 14 United Sta

hat cannot be addressed by any bail conditions. English, 629 F.3d at 319 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020). And regardless of the presence of the presumption or the nature of the charges

deny Citibank's and Citigroup's motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, to dismiss for improper venue, and to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I find that the amended complaint adequately states claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepr

hat are within the purview of the [Martin] Act.); Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Steams, & Co., Inc., 17 F.Supp.2d 275, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (same); Deutsch v. Integrated Barter Ina Inc. 700 F.Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y.1988); CPC Intl, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.. 70 N.Y.2d 268, 276, 519 N.Y.S.2d 804, 514 N.E.2d 116

rk Anticipating that I might find that jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court, the defendants have requested that I transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. They aver that this claim actually arose in New York and that the clauses in the agreements EFTA01726523

are within the purview of the (Martin] Act.); Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns, & Co., Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 275, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (same); Deutsch v. Integrated Barter Int'l, Inc. 700 F. Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); CPC Int'l, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 70 N.Y.2d 268, 276 (N.Y. 1987) (noting that "