Epstein Secrets

Boies it was issued. The materials provided by Boies Schiller inclnin addition tIl inscripts of Maxwell and other individuals, materials proday N/14!IME lles, and court-relatedpleadings in the ase. 7. Magistrate Juda jOrder On or about April 9, 201

on in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials and that Maxwell's interests outweighed the public's interests in access to the materials. n. Maxwell, No.20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska "correctly held that the deposition ma

eeting in the summer of 2016 after Maxwell allegedly 35 See Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily News, Oct. 13, 2020, https://www.nydailynews.corninew-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013- jmzh17zdr

osecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily New

al. On February 8, 2021, Judge Preska "decline[d] Ms. Maxwell's invitation to reconsider its order" and noted

er assertion that was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution" (Def. Mot 3 at 2) (emphasis in orig

ts' claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the

tantial preliminary showing" requirement explained above exists to "avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful." Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. "[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law." United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN),

provided to Boies Schiller shortly after it was issued. The materials provided by Boies Schiller included, in addition to deposition transcripts of Maxwell and other individuals, materials produced by Maxwell, and non-parties, and court-related pleadings in the civil case. 7. Magistrate Judge Netburn

eeting in the summer of 2016 after Maxwell allegedly 35 See Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily News, Oct. 13, 2020, hftps://www.nydailynews.cominew-yorlc/ny-j effrey-epstein-maxwel I-case-20201013- jrnzhl7

al. On February 8, 2021, Judge Preska "decline[d] Ms. Maxwell's invitation to reconsider its order" and noted

osecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily New

hat "Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution" (Def. Mot. 3 at 2) (emphasis in ori

ts' claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the

tantial preliminary showing" requirement explained above exists to "avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful." Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. "[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law." United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN),

provided to Boies Schiller shortly after it was issued. The materials provided by Boies Schiller included, in addition to deposition transcripts of Maxwell and other individuals, materials produced by Giuffre, Maxwell, and non-parties, and court-related pleadings in the civil case. 7. Magistrate Judge

eeting in the summer of 2016 after Maxwell allegedly 35 See Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily News, Oct. 13, 2020, https://wwvv.nydailynews.corninew-yorlc/ny-jeffity-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013- jrnzhl7

al. On February 8, 2021, Judge Preska "decline[d] Ms. Maxwell's invitation to reconsider its order" and noted

osecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily New

hat "Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution" (Def. Mot. 3 at 2) (emphasis in ori

ts' claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the

tantial preliminary showing" requirement explained above exists to "avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful." Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. "[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law." United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN),

provided to Boies Schiller shortly after it was issued. The materials provided by Boies Schiller included, in addition to deposition transcripts of Maxwell and other individuals, materials produced by Giuffre, Maxwell, and non-parties, and court-related pleadings in the civil case. 7. Magistrate Judge

eeting in the summer of 2016 after Maxwell allegedly 35 See Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily News, Oct. 13, 2020, https://wwvv.nydailynews.corninew-yorlc/ny-jeffity-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013- jrnzhl7

al. On February 8, 2021, Judge Preska "decline[d] Ms. Maxwell's invitation to reconsider its order" and noted

osecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily New

hat "Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution" (Def. Mot. 3 at 2) (emphasis in ori

ts' claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the

tantial preliminary showing" requirement explained above exists to "avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful." Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. "[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law." United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN),

materials. Giuf•e v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.) (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska "correctly held that the deposition ma

as "insist[ing] [a second meeting] never happened." 36 See Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily News, Oct. 13, 2020, https://wwvv.nydailynews.corninew-yorlc/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013- jrnzhl7

al. On February 8, 2021, Judge Preska "decline[d] Ms. Maxwell's invitation to reconsider its order" and noted

osecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily New

her assertion that was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution" (Def. Mot. 3 at 2) (emphasis in ori

ts' claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the

tantial preliminary showing" requirement explained above exists to "avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful." Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. "[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law." United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN),

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 A

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 EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO BOLES SCHILLER AND TO DI

. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987) 24 Other Authorities Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) 11 U.S. Dept. of Justice, JUSTICE MANUAL, JM § 9-11.151 15 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 19 N.

ause the government was attempting to deprive Maxwell of notice and an opportunity to be heard); Martindell, 594 F.2d at 294; see U.S. CONST. amend. V. Maxwell also had a privacy interest in the materials subject to the subpoena, including most especially her deposition transcripts. Mot. Ex. A (defining "c

20 United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) 23 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 20, 22, 25, 26 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 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 Cir. 1996)

applies, Maxwell has easily met her burden. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the

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

20 United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) 23 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 20, 22, 25, 26 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 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)

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

20 United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) 23 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 20, 22, 25, 26 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 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)