Epstein Secrets

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

ictim-3's experiences in the Indictment "may not be stricken" "regardless of how prejudicial the language is .. ." Scarpa, 913 F.2d at 1013 (quoting DePahna, 461 F. Supp. at 797). Finally, even if Minor Victim-3's experiences did not constitute direct evidence of the crimes charged—which they do—this s

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

ictim-3's experiences in the Indictment "may not be stricken" "regardless of how prejudicial the language is .. ." Scarpa, 913 F.2d at 1013 (quoting DePahna, 461 F. Supp. at 797). Finally, even if Minor Victim-3's experiences did not constitute direct evidence of the crimes charged—which they do—this s

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

ant to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken." Id. (brackets in original) (quoting United States v. DePahna, 461 F. Supp. 778, 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 99 (2d Cir. 2001). "This standard is an exacting one, and o

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

17 Cr. 585 (WHP), 2018 WL 740727 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018) 114 United States v. Delacruz, 970 F. Supp. 2d 199 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 53 United States v. DePahna, 461 F. Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) 159, 164 United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 112 United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52