Epstein Secrets

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 COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE SUPERSED

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 COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN &

31-7364 Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00103709 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. The 2003 Amendment Does Not Apply Retr

. Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's alleged offenses would have impermissible effe

t involve fraud or deceit" to mean "offenses with elements that necessarily entail fraudulent or deceitful conduct") (internal punctuation omitted); Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 7 (2004) (stating that "offense that . . . involves" language "requires us to look to the elements and the nature of the o

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

tes, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d

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 EFTA00100024 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 SI 20 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

ates, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungvs v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgralv. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel Coup., 594 F.2d

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

s, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d

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

s, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d

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

095073 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) Landgraf v. US! Film Products, 148 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 27 Landgraf, 511 U.S 27, 30, 32 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 40 Lighte, 782 F.3d 120 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 98 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel

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 COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE SUPERSEDIN

fices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Phone: Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00028903 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE

etroactivity and Rejected a Proposal to Do So 3 1. Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision ends the inquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor. 3 2. Cases applying the 2003 Amendment retroactively are readily distinguishable. 5 3. The government cannot prevail at step one. 7

tivity provision ends the inquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor. 3 2. Cases applying the 2003 Amendmen

m & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990) 3 Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012) Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) Leocal v. Ashcroft, 11 passim 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 11 Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999) 6 Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 12, 13 Shular v.