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) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, A

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S S

MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Phone: Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Phone: Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00097331 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii TABLE OF EXHIBITS Factual Background 1 Argument 1 I. The

ably would have come to possess the 90,000-sum pages of material it obtained from Boies Schiller. The facts and law belie the government's claims. A. Maxwell has standing. The government's standing argument boils down to this: Maxwell cannot challenge the search because the material was in the possession

med privilege or right may intervene to assert it." Id. (quoting Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 1980)). See also US Bank Nat. Ass'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12 CIV. 6811 CM JCF, 2012 WL 5395249, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) ("A party [has] standing to challenge . . . a subpoena served on a non-par

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, A

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S S

ey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin • er Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00097649 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii TABLE OF EXHIBITS Factual Background 1 Argument 1 I. The

ably would have come to possess the 90,000-sum pages of material it obtained from Boies Schiller. The facts and law belie the government's claims. A. Maxwell has standing. The government's standing argument boils down to this: Maxwell cannot challenge the search because the material was in the possession

med privilege or right may intervene to assert it." Id. (quoting Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 1980)). See also US Bank Nat. Ass'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12 CIV. 6811 CM JCF, 2012 WL 5395249, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) ("A party [has] standing to challenge . . . a subpoena served on a non-par

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, A

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S S

57-7600 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 EFTA00100287 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii TABLE OF EXHIBITS Factual Background 1 Argument 1 I. The

ably would have come to possess the 90,000-sum pages of material it obtained from Boies Schiller. The facts and law belie the government's claims. A. Maxwell has standing. The government's standing argument boils down to this: Maxwell cannot challenge the search because the material was in the possession

med privilege or right may intervene to assert it." Id. (quoting Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 1980)). See also US Bank Nat. Ass'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12 CIV. 6811 CM JCF, 2012 WL 5395249, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) ("A party [has] standing to challenge . . . a subpoena served on a non-par