Epstein Secrets

ns [were] the result of the affiant's deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 397; see also United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 2003). Even if a defendant clears the firstFranks hurdle with a substantial preliminary showingof a false statement or om

o omissions. "Franks protects against omissions that are designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead." Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68 (emphasis in original). After all, "'[a]ll storytelling involves an element of selectivity,' and it is therefore not necessarily co

e, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous facts, runs afoul of controlling law, and should be denied. 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks Maxwell argues that the Government "circumvented" the Second Circuit's decision in Martin

ns [were] the result of the affiant's deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 397; see also United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 2003). Even if a defendant clears the first Franks hurdle with a substantial preliminary showing of a false statement or

o omissions. "Franks protects against omissions that are designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead." Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68 (emphasis in original). After all, "la]ll storytelling involves an element of selectivity,' and it is therefore not necessarily con

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netbum concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but

ns [were] the result of the affiant's deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 397; see also United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 2003). Even if a defendant clears the first Franks hurdle with a substantial preliminary showing of a false statement or

o omissions. "Franks protects against omissions that are designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead." Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68 (emphasis in original). After all, "la]ll storytelling involves an element of selectivity,' and it is therefore not necessarily con

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netbum concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but

ns [were] the result of the affiant's deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 397; see also United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 2003). Even if a defendant clears the first Franks hurdle with a substantial preliminary showing of a false statement or

o omissions. "Franks protects against omissions that are designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead." Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68 (emphasis in original). After all, "la]ll storytelling involves an element of selectivity,' and it is therefore not necessarily con

uppression Motion Should Be Denied Maxwell seeks suppression of the evidence the Government obtained via a judicially authorized subpoena to under Martindell, the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, the Due Process clause, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous fa

ns [were] the result of the affiant's deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 397; see also United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 2003). Even if a defendant clears the first Franks hurdle with a substantial preliminary showing of a false statement or

o omissions. "Franks protects against omissions that are designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead." Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68 (emphasis in original). After all, "la]ll storytelling involves an element of selectivity,' and it is therefore not necessarily con

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netburn concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, bu

United States v. Ash, 464 F. Supp. 3d 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 145 United States v. Ashburn, 76 F. Supp. 3d 401 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) 126 United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003) 166, 168 United States v. Bahna, 68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995) passim United States v. Balde, 20 Cr. 281 (KPF) 298 U

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

United States v. Ash, 464 F. Supp. 3d 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 145 United States v. Ashburn, 76 F. Supp. 3d 401 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) 126 United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003) 166, 168 United States v. Bahna, 68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995) passim United States v. Balde, 20 Cr. 281 (KPF) 298 U

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

United States v. Ash, 464 F. Supp. 3d 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 100 United States v. Ashburn, 76 F. Supp. 3d 401 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) 88 United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003) 113, 114 United States v. Bahna, 68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995) passim United States v. Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D.

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

ited States v. Ash, 464 F. Supp. 3d 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 145 United States v. Ashburn, 76 F. Supp. 3d 401 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) 126 United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003) 166, 168 United States v. Bahna, 68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995) passim United States v. Balde, 20 Cr. 281 (KPF) 298

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8