Epstein Secrets

rnelbdatOrternOMORIled fitri 2612Ca eoltf 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, -against- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) MEMORANDUM & ORDER LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: The Court has reviewed Defendant G

eviewed Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's letter requesting reconsideration of the Court's July 23, 2020, decision to unseal (1) the transcripts of Ms. Maxwell's and Doe l's depositions, and (2) court submissions excerpting from, quoting from, or summarizing the contents of the transcripts. (See dkt. no.

District Judge: The Court has reviewed Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's letter requesting reconsideration of t

2020, decision to unseal (1) the transcripts of Ms. Maxwell's and Doe l's depositions, and (2) court submiss

urt, nor may it be used as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court." Bennett v. Watson Wyatt & Co., 156 F. Supp.2d 270, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Here, Ms. Maxwell's request for reconsideration hinges on her assertion that new developments, i.e., her indictment and arrest, provide compelli

P.C. Dear Counsel: The Silvio I. Motto Building January 10, 2021 Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) We write in response to your letter of December 28, 2020, in which you request a bill of particulars in the above-captioned matter

bbi C. Sternheim Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) We write in response to your le

ices of Bobbi C. Sternheim Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) We write in response to

denying request for bill of particulars that would identify alleged co-conspirators and victims); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("[D]emands for particular information with respect to where, when, and with whom the Government will charge the defendant with conspiring are rou

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

vocates, but public officials charged with administering justice honestly, fairly and impartially." Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601, 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 24 EFTA00028957 --- PAGE BREAK --- In turn, this already high standard ratchets up even higher when a prosecutor appears before the court ex