Epstein Secrets

20 United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) 23 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 20, 22, 25, 26 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 22 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 23, 25 United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996)

applies, Maxwell has easily met her burden. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the

g the government's ex parte request to modify the Jane Doe 43 Protective Order in part because the governme

ts' claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the

tantial preliminary showing" requirement explained above exists to "avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful." Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. "[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law." United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN),

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,

ts' claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the

tantial preliminary showing" requirement explained above exists to "avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful." Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. "[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law." United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN),

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,

ts' claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the

tantial preliminary showing" requirement explained above exists to "avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful." Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. "[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law." United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN),

INIMIIIIM the definfrOn the defendant's motion for summary judgment. (See 15 Civ. 7443 (LAP), Dkt. No. 542-4). Giuffre has since self-identified as Jane Doe #3. (See id., Dkt. No. 23 n.2). 117 EFTA00095209 As described in the preceding section, in the fall of 2015, Giuffre sued the defendant for defa

ts' claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the

tantial preliminary showing" requirement explained above exists to "avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful." Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. "[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law." United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN),

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,

imposed minimum. Notwithstanding the above legal analysis, in the recent case of Individual Known to Defendant As 08MIST096.JPG and 08mist067.ipg Falso, 2009 WL 4807537 (N.D. N.Y. Dec. 9, 2009), United States District Court for the Northern District of New York s Plaintiff has attempted to allege 6

se to our requests during our meeting of February 3. Since February 11, 2010, a lawsuit has been filed by the attorney representative on behalf of Jane Doe 103. Her identity is known by us and she is on the "identified list." Her lawsuit raises only §2255 claims. Although she has not waived her right

imposed minimum. Notwithstanding the above legal analysis, in the recent case of Individual Known to Defendant As 08M1ST096.JPG and 08mist067.iog Falso, 2009 WI, 4807537 (N.D. N.Y. Dec. 9, 2009), United States District Court for the Northern District of New York Plaintiff has attempted to allege 6

r Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33394 Re: B.B. JEFFREY EPSTEIN OUR FILE NO.: 080303 Dear Ms. Villafana: As you are aware, this firm represents Plaintiff, Jane Doe, a/k/a/ B.B. in the civil litigation against Jeffrey Epstein styled B.B. I Jeffrey Epstein. case no.: 502008CA037319 MB AB. We are hereby requestin

20 United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) 23 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 20, 22, 25, 26 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 22 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 23, 25 United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Or. 1996)

g the government's ex parte request to modify the Jane Doe 43 Protective Order in part because the governme

20 United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) 23 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 20, 22, 25, 26 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 22 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 23, 25 United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Or. 1996)

g the government's ex parte request to modify the Jane Doe 43 Protective Order in part because the governme