Epstein Secrets

axwell is a stunning example of prosecutorial overreach. It is no mystery what happened here. The Palm Beach FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") conducted a thorough investigation of Jeffrey Epstein from 2006-2008 (the "Florida Investigation"), but decided not to pros

States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) 7 United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1988) 9 ii EFTA00104413 United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 7 United States v. Torres, 719 F.2d 549 (2d Cir. 1983) 15 iii EFTA00104414 Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submit

ial settlement agreement. Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing_approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a EFTA00040664 meeting to provide the Government information on possible criminal conduct. The AUSA met with three atto

ority. Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government 15 EFTA00040678 deliberatel

al settlement agreement. Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a No. EFTA00106039 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 2 of 21 meeting to provide the Government i

ority. Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government 15 EFTA00106053 Case 1:20-c

al settlement agreement. Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a EFTA00066510 meeting to provide the Government information on possible criminal conduct. The AUSA met with three atto

ority. Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government 15 EFTA00066524 deliberatel

al settlement agreement. Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a EFTA00087251 meeting to provide the Government information on possible criminal conduct. The AUSA met with three atto

ority. Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government 15 EFTA00087265 deliberatel

al settlement agreement. Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a EFTA00087230 meeting to provide the Government information on possible criminal conduct. The AUSA met with three atto

ority. Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government 15 EFTA00087244 deliberatel

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

e district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.")); United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit "presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively

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

e district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.")); United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit "presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively

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

e district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.")); United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit "presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively

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

e district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.")); United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit "presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively