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

of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused." United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82,91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Such outrageous or conscience shocking behavior involves egregious invasion

ern District of New York One Saint Andrews Plaza New York, NY 10007 Attn: AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe & Alex Rossmiller Re: United States v. Maxwell Dear Counsel: I have been retained on behalf of Professor Alan Dershowitz to provide m opinions as a legal ethics expert regarding prosecutors' ca

lf of Professor Alan Dershowitz to provide m opinions as a legal ethics expert regarding prosecutors' candor obligations relating to submissions at Ghislaine Maxwell's upcoming sentencing. The relevant facts, provided for my consideration, arc, in brief, as follows. Although Ms. was not a witness at Ms. Maxwell's

deposition testimony gm the credibility of her submission to the court; further, if the Office concludes that Ms ubmission is unreliable, 2 SDNY GM 02775900 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00262540 EFTA01340453 it has a candor obligation to raise this conc

s' candor obligations relating to submissions at Ghislaine Maxwell's upcoming sentencing. The relevant fact

f, as follows. Although Ms. was not a witness at Ms. Maxwell's trial, she has been notified of her right to ma

sentencing court's decision-making, it is surely the prosecutor." Green, Candor in Criminal Advocacy. supra, at 446; cf. United States v. E.V., 500 F.3d 747, 754 n.12 (8th Cr. 2007) (referring to "prosecutors' obligation to apprise the court of facts relevant to sentencingl. Consequently, the Office

ow precise. complete statement of relief sought: Order to Show Cause and March 13 Order should be reconsidered and vacated MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell OPhintiff DDefendant ['Appellant/Petitioner nAppeUee/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY: Ty Gee [name of attorney, with fm. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman

Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page2 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant, v. SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants No. 18-

ment 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page4 of 27 has the ability to balance the public's interest in access to the discovery in court filings against Ms. Maxwell's and the non-parties' compelling interests. This is an extraordinary case. Ms. for more than a decade has actively pursued publicity and money fo

access to the discovery in court filings against Ms. Maxwell's and the non-parties' compelling interests. Thi

able one. As Lugosch holds, it can be overcome by "specific, on-the- record findings that higher values necessitate a narrowly tailored sealing." 435 F.3d at 126. The Order to Show Cause is improperly dismissive both of the rebuttal of the presumption Ms. Maxwell is entitled to make and the procedure

Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of New York One Saint Andrews Plaza New York, NY 10007 Ann: AUSAs Re: United States v. Maxwell Dear Counsel: 546 FIFTH MULE NEW YORK. IC( 10036 TELEPHONE: (212) 486-0011 FACSIMILE (917) 261-4832 WIVIN.ACALALAW.CCOA June 16, 2022 8118 •

f of Professor Alan Dershowitz to provide my opinions as a legal ethics expert regarding prosecutors' candor obligations relating to submissions at Ghislaine Maxwell's upcoming sentencing. The relevant facts, provided for my consideration, are, in brief, as follows. Although was not a witness at Ms. Maxwell's tria

pact statement during the sentencing phase of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and therein vouch in that proceedi

brief, as follows. Although was not a witness at Ms. Maxwell's trial, she has been notified of her right to ma

sentencing court's decision-making, it is surely the prosecutor." Green, Candor in Criminal Advocacy, supra, at 446; cf. United States v. E.V., 500 F.3d 747, 754 n.12 (81° Cir. 2007) (referring to 'prosecutors' obligation to apprise the court of facts relevant to sentencing"). Consequently, the Offic

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

run.") (citing Falter, 23 F.3d at 425-26). And other circuits have emphasized this distinction in the context of Section 3283. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d, at 922-25; Jeffries, 405 F.3d 685. Read together, the Second Circuit's decisions in Weingarten, Vernon, Enterprise, and Falter establish that Cong