Epstein Secrets

EW YORK Plaintiff, - against - GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant. : Case No. 15-cv-7433 (RWS) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS JULIE BROWN AND MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND UNSEAL 1 EFTA00805407 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 936 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 21

OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS JULIE BROWN AND MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY'S MOTION TO INTER

g]enerally, the presumption of access applies to all documents filed with the court." Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d at 269; see also United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (generally, a document is a "judicial document" if it is "submitted to the Court for the purposes of seeki

94 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) 257 United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 207, 214, 217 United States v. Brown, 744 F. Supp. 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) 170 United States v. Brown, 800 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2020), cert denied, No. 20-5064, S.Ct. , 2021 WL 78235

f articles published by the Miami Herald earlier that same week relating to Epstein, his conduct, and the circumstances of his prior conviction. See Julie K. Brown, "Even from Jail, Sex Abuser Manipulated the System. His Victims Were Kept in the Dark," Miami Herald (Nov. 28, 2018).31 AUSA-1 was not involved in

ted States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 27 United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) 302 United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396 (

94 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) 257 United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 207, 214, 217 United States v. Brown, 744 F. Supp. 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) 170 United States v. Brown, 800 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2020), cert denied, No. 20-5064, S.Ct. , 2021 WL 78235

f articles published by the Miami Herald earlier that same week relating to Epstein, his conduct, and the circumstances of his prior conviction. See Julie K. Brown, "Even from Jail, Sex Abuser Manipulated the System. His Victims Were Kept in the Dark," Miami Herald (Nov. 28, 2018).31 AUSA-1 was not involved in

ted States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 27 United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) 302 United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396 (

d States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir. 1977) 52 United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 139, 143, 145 United States v. Brown, 744 F. Supp. 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) 115 United States v. Brown, 800 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2020) 26, 29 United States v. Brown, No. 07-0296, 200

articles published by the Miami Herald earlier that same week relating to Epstein, his conduct, and the circumstances of his prior conviction. See Julie K. Brown, Even from Jail, Sex Abuser Manipulated The System. His Victims Were Kept in The Dark, Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018.32 AUSA-1 was not involved in the

ted States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 52 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 120, 121 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 22 United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) 210 United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396 (

94 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) 257 United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 207, 214, 217 United States v. Brown, 744 F. Supp. 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) 170 United States v. Brown, 800 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2020), cent denied, No. 20-5064, S.Ct. , 2021 WL 78235

f articles published by the Miami Herald earlier that same week relating to Epstein, his conduct, and the circumstances of his prior conviction. See Julie K. Brown, "Even from Jail, Sex Abuser Manipulated the System. His Victims Were Kept in the Dark," Miami Herald (Nov. 28, 2018).3' AUSA-1 was not involved in

ed States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 27 United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) 302 United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396 (

02) United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) United States v. Ashy*: 29 passim 320 F. App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2009) 22 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 23 United States v. CFW Const. Co., 583 F. Supp. 197 (D.S.C.), affd, 749 F.2d 33 (4th C

6) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 20, 21, 23 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) 29 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 24 United States

roviding the Court with a list of broad and vague categories of reasons for maintaining nearly all of the motion papers in this matter under seal); Brown v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868, Dkt. 149 (2d Cir. Mar. 19, 2019) (listing in a cursory fashion several reasons that the summary judgment materials should r

ssino, 356 F. Supp. 2d 227 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 3 iii EFTA00075026 CasQaP.€1.§%4043g4.94:neDbair§eAFR95§04qieiPtig2V2eaMbef43df 24 United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 19 VR Optics, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 16-CV-6392 (JPO), 2019 WL 2121690 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2019

02) United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) United States v. Ashy*: 29 passim 320 F. App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2009) 22 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 23 United States v. CFW Const. Co., 583 F. Supp. 197 (D.S.C.), affd, 749 F.2d 33 (4th C

6) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 20, 21, 23 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) 29 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 24 United States

d Justice Scott Baker, delivering the judgment of the court on 7 August 2009, found that the decisions of the United States federal courts in Ajaj, Sattar and Wilkinson v. Austin (see paragraphs 109 and 110 below) demonstrated that there was effective judicial oversight of "supermax" prisons such as

EFTA00031749 --- PAGE BREAK --- 16 BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 69. A minority of their Lordships, Lord Scott and Lord Brown, disagreed with these conclusions. They considered that the extradition context was irrelevant to the determination of whether a whole life sentenc