Epstein Secrets

ccscssescescsneesesssnseeesesnseeesnsnsecesesnseeesnsnseersnseseerensess Galderv, Jones, 465 US: TSB COBRA): ssvssevsvasecrvscenccecereavsereressees Carpenter v. Republic of Chile, 610 F.3d 776 (2d Cir. 2010) .. Carter v. Barry; 468 F.2d.821 (2d Cir: 1972) sesssscccsescoessavsscecevecous Chambers v. Time W

r claims against these financial sponsors of terrorism. Statement Of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had subject matter jurisdiction over these actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1330, 1331, 1332, 1350, 1367, 1407, and 1605, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964 and 2338,

rorist activities and to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. See Wyatt, 785 F. Supp. 2d at 647-48; see also Goldberg v. UBS AG, 660 F. Supp. 2d 410, 428-29 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding that plaintiffs had “sufficiently pled that the defendant consciously disregarded the fact that it was supporting a terrorist organiza

t notice must actually "summarize the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017), abrogated on other grounds by Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). "Merely identifying the general topics about which the expert will testify is insufficient; rather, the su

the defense to provide forthwith. Dated: November 15, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: /s/ Assistant United States Attorneys 26 EFTA00024981

13 Certificate of Service 15 ii EFTA00018998 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal ofHughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) 2 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2, 3 Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y

, who are "not acting at the behest of the police." Id. "Such an analysis is inherently speculative." Id. In fact, unlike every other civil case in the Southern District of New York against Maxwell or Epstein's estate, the government deliberately chose not to intervene in the on-going unsealing process in Giuffre v. Maxwell. In