Epstein Secrets

RNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 15-CV-7433 (LAP) Ghislaine Maxwell's Opening Brief Ty Gee Adam Mueller HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Den r 2 Tel. Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Ghisla

motion to unseal and the first appeal 6 The remand, the arrest, and the indictment. 7 The order unsealing the deposition material, including Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript 11 Events after the filing of the notice of appeal and the critical new information 13 Summary of the Argument

C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Tel 303.831.7364 Fax 303.832.2628 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell 42 EFTA00075524 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page49 of 74 Certificate of Compliance with Rule 32(A) This brief comp

rder unsealing the deposition material, including Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript 11 Events a

: [T]here is no question that the plain terms of the Maxwell Protective Order would justify such an expectati

terial should remain sealed to protect Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. U.S. CONST. amends. V, VI. The decision in Nixon a Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) shows why. In that case, members of the media moved the district court to release audio tapes admitted into evidence in the tr

ver, Colorado 80203 ni 303.831.7364 rx 303.832.2628 www.hmtlaw.com tgeefghmflaw.com Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish

.com Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two deposition transcripts were designated

eration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Presk

v. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its

ining the Maxwell materials from Boies Schiller, the Maxwell Protective Order explicitly provides that (1) di

in deciding whether to unseal materials it was important to give weight to the impact on a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial. In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), a number of media moved the district court to release audio tapes admitted into evidence in the trial of four of President Ni

v. Maxwell, — F.Supp.3d — (2018) 2018 WL 4062649 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, S.D. New York. Plaintiff,

F.Supp.3d — (2018) 2018 WL 4062649 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, S.D. New York. Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine MAXWELL, Defendant. 15 Civ. 7433 i Signed 08/27/2018 Synopsis Background: Following settlement of plaintiff's action for defamation, news media and inv

s District Court, S.D. New York. Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine MAXWELL, Defendant. 15 Civ. 7433 i Signed 08/2

her claim of defamation by Maxwell arising out of the Maxwell January 3 Statement. alleged she was the "victim

uments may be kept under seal if ... `higher values' in the First Amendment framework so demand."). Further, as the Supreme Court noted in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 589, 98 S.Ct. 1306, "courts have the power to insure that their records are not used to gratify private WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters