Epstein Secrets

on documents) with Ms. Maxwell and will further compromise her ability to prepare her defense. Moreover, as this Court observed in United States v. Stephens, if an outbreak occurs "substantial medical and security challenges would almost certainly arise." Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d at 65. We urge the Cour

inly arise." Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d at 65. We urge the Court to weigh the threat of COVID as a factor favoring release in this case, as it did in Stephens. CONCLUSION Ghislaine Maxwell is committed to defending herself and wants nothing more than to remain in this country, with her family and friends

5, 2000 WL 1872012 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000) 19 United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2018) 28 United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) 7, 8 United States v. Rowe, 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003)

rating "that the court overlooked information or incorrectly applied the law," or that failure to reconsider "would constitute manifest injustice." Petrov, 2015 WL 1102286 at *3. DISCUSSION Having already raised numerous arguments in its briefing and oral argument at the initial bail hearing in this

o. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) 8 United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) 27 United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 7, 38 United States v. Ward, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999) 7 iii EFTA00065719 Statutes 18 U.S.C.

inly arise." Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d at 65. We urge the Court to weigh the threat of COVID as a factor favoring release in this case, as it did in Stephens. CONCLUSION Ghislaine Maxwell is committed to defending herself and wants nothing more than to remain in this country, with her family and friends

ited States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632 (D.N.M. 2000) 8 United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887 (8th Cir. 1985) 35 United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) 8 United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003

o. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) 8 United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) 27 United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 7, 38 United States v. Ward, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999) 7 iii EFTA00154515 Statutes 18 U.S.C.

inly arise." Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d at 65. We urge the Court to weigh the threat of COVID as a factor favoring release in this case, as it did in Stephens. CONCLUSION Ghislaine Maxwell is committed to defending herself and wants nothing more than to remain in this country, with her family and friends

ited States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632 (D.N.M. 2000) 8 United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887 (8th Cir. 1985) 35 United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) 8 United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003

o. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) 8 United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) 27 United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 7, 38 United States v. Ward, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999) 7 iii EFTA00094292 Statutes 18 U.S.C.

inly arise." Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d at 65. We urge the Court to weigh the threat of COVID as a factor favoring release in this case, as it did in Stephens. CONCLUSION Ghislaine Maxwell is committed to defending herself and wants nothing more than to remain in this country, with her family and friends

ited States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632 (D.N.M. 2000) 8 United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887 (8th Cir. 1985) 35 United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) 8 United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003

al under the current pandemic situation is just not realistic. It is not meaningful. It is not fair. And I should say, as your Honor noted, in the Stephens case, we are not faulting the Bureau of Prisons. We are not faulting the Marshal Service. We understand they are doing the best they can under the

limits in the early instances your access to the client. It is complicated by the COVID crisis and the other factors your Honor has pointed out in Stephens and in Williams-Bethea, and so it is very hard for us to pull together this financial information, and we have done it as quickly as we could befor

ited States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632 (D.N.M. 2000) 8 United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887 (8th Cir. 1985) 35 United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) 8 United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003

. 2020). But at least one other federal district court has recently considered and granted pretrial release under that section. See United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63,66-68 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (Nathan, J.); but see Alderete, 336 F.R.D. at 268. 11 EFTA00093420 CaszEsc'. 27-U412[9496W ntCldeanik4

dered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); see also United States v. Petrov, No. I 5-CR-66- LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previou