Epstein Secrets

ed to the court, the filing "shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York." (Id. ¶ 10.) The docket sheet in v. Maxwell reveals that such motions were frequently made and routinely granted. As a result, a vast

nd I am not at liberty to ignore it. The Government argues that the Court should decline to analyze its request pursuant to Martindell in light of Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Like this case, Chemical Bank arose in a somewhat unusual posture: a party to a protective

singly farfetched story, however, the government insists that nothing improper occurred when it misrepresented these contacts to the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York. Contrary to the government's portrayal of events, what happened here is that a prosecutor from the public corruption unit of the Unite

) 8 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) 24 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 11 Brown v. Maxwel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019) 19, 20 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 14, 18, 19 Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) 20 Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v

ein and Maxwell!' Then, after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury." Brown, supra n.2. Said Mr. Boies: "We were saying to anyone who would listen: We've got clients who

), 2017 WL 4005452 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Ck 2019) 3, 6 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991) 17 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 1

ed to the court, the filing "shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York." (Id ¶ 10.) The docket sheet in Giulfre v. Maxwell reveals that such motions were frequently made and routinely granted. As a result,

nd I am not at liberty to ignore it. The Government argues that the Court should decline to analyze its request pursuant to Martindell in light of Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Like this case, Chemical Bank arose in a somewhat unusual posture: a party to a protective

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 passim Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim EFTA00099946 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Colo

cedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), lijt has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments."' United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez,

poena on (Def. ef. Mot. 3 Chief Judge McMahon ss the misconduct at issugare: modification (Def. M 4" See, e.g., Exs. 8 & 9 at 2-3 (discussing Chemical Bank as rejecting a contempt request where a party "compl[ied] with a grand jury subpoena despite the existence of a protective order" and focusing argu

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 passim Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim EFTA00077611 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Colo

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 passim Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim EFTA00039426 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Colo

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 passim Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim EFTA00103004 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Colo

cedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), li]t has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments."' United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez,

y time prior to the Government opening its investigation. (Def. Mot. 3 at 1). Instead, Chief Judge McMahon's question was more specific: referencing Chemical Bank and the desire to avoid "a Chemical Bank kind of situation," Chief Judge McMahon asked about contacts between the two parties "prior to the issuanc