Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR BREACH OF

of Bobbi C. Stemheim Phone: Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00028880 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. The NPA Applies to Ms. Maxwell, and She Has Standing to Enforce It. 2 II. The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision is Not Limited to the SDFL. 7 III. The Co-Conspirator Immunit

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. The NPA Applies to Ms. Maxwell, and She Has Standing to Enforce It. 2 II. Th

rnout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 12 Other Authorities Dienst, J., Valiquette, J., Winter, T., and Fitzpatrick, S. "Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges." NBC New York. July 3, 2020 15 iii EFTA00028883 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully subm

107841 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2016) 6 United States v. Padilla, 186 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1999) 10 EFTA00028882 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 17 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 12 Other Authorities Dienst, J., Valique

ESSER LLP Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00065989 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS 7 A. The Structure of the NPA 8 B. The Negotiation of the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR BREACH OF NO

OURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR BREACH OF NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESS

ould Be Dismissed for Breach of the NPA. 14 A. Ms. Maxwell Has Standing to Enforce the NPA. 15 B. The NPA

6) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 20, 21, 23 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) 29 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 24 United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR BREACH OF NO

OURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR BREACH OF NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00099352 TAB

AJN) MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR BREACH OF NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00099352 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS 7 U The Structure of the NPA 8 B. The Negotiation of the

hould Be Dismissed for Breach of the NPA. 14 a Ms. Maxwell Has Standing to Enforce the NPA. 15 B. The NPA

6) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 20, 21, 23 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) 29 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 24 United States

ase 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 936 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, - against - GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant. : Case No. 15-cv-7433 (RWS) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS JULIE BROWN AND MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY'S MOTIO

2 of 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 I. INTERVENORS' COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL 2 II. THE OVERBROAD SEALING ORDER AND PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL 3 III. THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO UNSEAL 6 ARGUMENT 6 I. MIAM

ABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 I. INTERVENORS' COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL 2 II. THE OVERBROAD SEALING ORDER AND PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL 3 III. THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO UNSEAL 6 ARGUMENT 6 I. MIAMI HERALD

. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell" or "Defendant") on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell,

g]enerally, the presumption of access applies to all documents filed with the court." Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d at 269; see also United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (generally, a document is a "judicial document" if it is "submitted to the Court for the purposes of seeki

aw 52 2. Discussion 54 IV. The Court Should Deny the Defendant's Motions to Suppress 59 A. Factual Background 61 1. The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell 61 2. February 2016 Meeting 62 3. The April and July 2016 Depositions of Maxwell 64 4. The USAO-SDNY Commences the Instant Investigation in 201

v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00103082 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless conjecture about the Government's supposedly nefarious re

x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS

(Def. Mot. 1 at 32 ("For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the

ed States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 27 United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) 302 United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396 (

Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing 21 II. The Indictment Is Timely 23 A. Statutory Background 24

v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00077689 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless conjecture about the Government's supposedly nefarious re

x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS

(Def. Mot. 1 at 32 ("For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the

ted States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 27 United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) 302 United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396 (

Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing 21 II. The Indictment Is Timely 23 A. Statutory Background 24

v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00039504 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless conjecture about the Government's supposedly nefarious re

x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS

(Def. Mot. 1 at 32 ("For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the

ted States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 27 United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) 302 United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396 (

Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights On Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing 21 II. The Indictment Is Timely 23 A. Statutory Background 24

criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00095149 claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless conjecture about the Government's nefarious reasons for d

x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS

(Def. Mot. 1 at 32 ("For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the

ted States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 52 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 120, 121 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 22 United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) 210 United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396 (

Acir§eAFilib§04illeif36§41028 befl3df 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, Case No.: 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MAXWELL'S OBJECTION TO UNSEALING DOCKET ENTRIES 143, 164, 172, 199, & 230 EFTA00075024 c

OURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, Case No.: 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MAXWELL'S OBJECTION TO UNSEALING DOCKET ENTRIES 143, 164, 172, 199, & 230 EFTA00075024 casap.q.§.bA1743g-umeneobecir§eAFfik§04tElS@§f21#28ainflef236f 24

elling reason to continue to keep their identities hidden. In fact, Doe 1 and Doe 2's names, as well as their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, have already been widely publicized, weighing against continued sealing. See, e.g., United States v. Avenatti, No. (SI) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL

ssino, 356 F. Supp. 2d 227 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 3 iii EFTA00075026 CasQaP.€1.§%4043g4.94:neDbair§eAFR95§04qieiPtig2V2eaMbef43df 24 United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 19 VR Optics, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 16-CV-6392 (JPO), 2019 WL 2121690 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2019