Epstein Secrets

sponse in Opposition to Defendant's Third Motion for Release on Bail EFTA00093361 G2ase12207MOGUIvA614 1136tA4M126€ 1 ,Falitiasneaft ePa§et13219 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio 1 Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 March 9, 202

both the United Kingdom and France is little more than window dressing. After receiving the defendant's Third Bail Motion, the Government, through the Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs ("OIA"), contacted the French Ministry of Justice ("MOJ") to understand the impact of the defendant's offer to reno

den of production, the presumption "remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436 (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). The Court is mindful "that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that `a strong probability

n the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has fled the Court's jurisdiction. According to the Government, "The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

n the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has fled the Court's jurisdiction. According to the Government, "The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

n the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has fled the Court's jurisdiction. According to the Government, "The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

y reference in the substantive charge (Count 2, ¶ 23). Beyond that, Mr. Epstein intends to raise and litigate significant due process issues about the Department of Justice's conduct in this case. Namely, there is irrefutable evidence from the pending CVRA litigation in the Southern District of Florida that, after Mr. Eps

ption in favor of detention based on the crimes charged, the presumption shifts only the burden of production, not persuasion. See United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the statutory demand on defendants "is fairly easily met." United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756

n the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has fled the Court's jurisdiction. According to the Government, "The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

y reference in the substantive charge (Count 2, ¶ 23). Beyond that, Mr. Epstein intends to raise and litigate significant due process issues about the Department of Justice's conduct in this case. Namely, there is irrefutable evidence from the pending CVRA litigation in the Southern District of Florida that, after Mr. Eps

ption in favor of detention based on the crimes charged, the presumption shifts only the burden of production, not persuasion. See United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the statutory demand on defendants "is fairly easily met." United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756

st:20-47I70023e4MIstit lacietriterillati2 Eila€16132)96/15%g 0.f932136 the jurisdiction of her choosing (i.e., the one to which she chose to flee). The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs ("OIA") is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver bindi

the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight:" English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436); see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) ("The government retains the burden of persuasion tin a presumption case]."). Even when "a defendant has met hi

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 1 of 14 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 12, 20

.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (same). Where a judicial officer concludes after a hearing that "no condition or combination of conditions will