Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 0: DATE FILED:i 102121 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN,

the evaluation" and "disclosures made [Alleged Victim 4]." Id. And fourth, he will testify to "the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA00068504 The Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the first two opinions based on Dr. Hall's

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA0006

33 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 706 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (13 years too remote); United States v. Paredes, No. 99-CR-290 (PKL), 2001 WL 1478810, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2001) ("A psychological condition from ten years earlier, however, is likely to be

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 0: DATE FILED:i 102121 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN,

the evaluation" and "disclosures made [Alleged Victim 4]." Id. And fourth, he will testify to "the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA00087206 The Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the first two opinions based on Dr. Hall's

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA0008

33 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 706 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (13 years too remote); United States v. Paredes, No. 99-CR-290 (PKL), 2001 WL 1478810, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2001) ("A psychological condition from ten years earlier, however, is likely to be

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 0: DATE FILED:i 102121 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN,

the evaluation" and "disclosures made [Alleged Victim 4]." Id. And fourth, he will testify to "the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA00089907 The Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the first two opinions based on Dr. Hall's

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA0008

33 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 706 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (13 years too remote); United States v. Paredes, No. 99-CR-290 (PKL), 2001 WL 1478810, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2001) ("A psychological condition from ten years earlier, however, is likely to be

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. : 20 Cr. 330 (MN) x MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii TABLE OF EXHIBITS iv INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 A. The Protective Order in v. Maxwell 2 B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions 4 C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 D. The

1998) 16 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 16 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 16 United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S I 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) 18 United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2013) 18 United S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. : 20 Cr. 330 (MN) x MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii TABLE OF EXHIBITS iv INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 A. The Protective Order in v. Maxwell 2 B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions 4 C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 D. The

1998) 16 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 16 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 16 United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S I 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) 18 United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2013) 18 United S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. : 20 Cr. 330 (MN) x MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii TABLE OF EXHIBITS iv INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 A. The Protective Order in v. Maxwell 2 B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions 4 C. The Settlement And Boles Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 D. The

1998) 16 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 16 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 16 United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S I 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) 18 United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2013) 18 United S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (MN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDE

Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00028929 --- PAGE BREAK --- Table

ts Fable of Authorities ii Table of Exhibits iv Introduction and Summary of the Argument 1 I. The Facts 2 II. The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion. 6 A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible. 7 B. Assuming the Government's Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the Government Still

r. 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) 20 United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. SI 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) 25 ii EFTA00028931 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Payner, 447 U.S.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (MN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDE

& GRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Sternheim Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00029100 --- PAGE BREAK --- Table

ts Fable of Authorities ii Table of Exhibits iv Introduction and Summary of the Argument 1 I. The Facts 2 II. The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion. 6 A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible. 7 B. Assuming the Government's Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the Government Still

o Judge McMahon. "An evidentiary hearing is normally required to address motions to suppress where a factual issue is in dispute." United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. SI 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776, at *1 June 8, 2009); United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir. 1992) ("[All evidentiary he