Epstein Secrets

12 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) 2 iii EFTA00100289 Other Authorities Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) 11 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 13 Fed. R. Cr

is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing Giuffre, which then compelled Maxwell, over objection, to answer irrelevant and highly prejudicia

now disclosed several documents "with respect to any criminal investigations" 3 Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jed Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020), https://www.nydailynews.corninew-yorktny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-2020

LES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

e, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. 1 ARGUMENT I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement ("NPA"

in illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charges the defendant with transporti

NARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant

f America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00099941 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case. 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New Yolk 4 1. The Text of the Agreement

atively limited, due to the confidential nature" of the litigation. (Id. at 2 n.1). The Government also submitted that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test to evaluate the Government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order because (1) the Martindell balancin

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, on April 16, 2

rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than Giuffre, and therefore that her answer was false. And even i

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). Giuffre's counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant te

e following colloquy occurred: Er. When you and Mr. Epstein were engaged in sexual activity that included th

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

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, on April 16, 2

rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than Giuffre, and therefore that her answer was false. And even i

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). Giuffre's counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant te

e following colloquy occurred: Er. When you and Mr. Epstein were engaged in sexual activity that included th

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

12 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) 2 iii EFTA00097333 Other Authorities Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) 11 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 13 Fed. R. Cr

is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing which then compelled Maxwell, over objection, to answer irrelevant and highly prejudicial person

LES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

12 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) 2 iii EFTA00097651 Other Authorities Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) 11 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 13 Fed. R. Cr

is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing which then compelled Maxwell, over objection, to answer irrelevant and highly prejudicial person

LES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin • er Christian R. E

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

SUBPOENA T AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN &

overnment there should have either moved to intervene or issued a subpoena to obtain th . For one thing, the Fourth Amendment was not at issue in Manindell, so the Court had no occasion to decide whether a warrant might have been required. For another, Martindell does not speak to what showing would hav

s and that require a subpoena duces tenon of such records to be supported by probable cause). Finally, of course, the government didn't comply with Manindell because it never gave Maxwell notice and an opportunity to quash the subpoena and to challenge the government's misrepresentations through the adver