Epstein Secrets

URT 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. 18-2868 Appellee Maxwell's Motion to Reconsider and Vacate the Court's Order to Show Cau

N CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, Intervenors-Appell

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

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

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

of an opportunity to engage in prohibited conduct. See, e.g,. United States v. Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 76-77 (1" Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 625 (I1th Cu. 1995). The government cannot fairly, or consistent with the rule of lenity, advocate a broader definition of the same te

is house if they were under the age of 18. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (1 3'Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v Puche, 350 F.3d t 137, 1149 (11th Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] ... that the defendant

mental informant. Id. The burden to even obtain a Franks hearing is a heavy one, and such hearings are thus exceedingly rare. See United States v. Brown, 744 F. Supp. 558, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ("A defendant seeking to have the Court hold a Franks hearing bears a substantial burden."); United States v

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

t [ ] independent of the search." United States Brown, 328 F.3d 352, 357 (7th Page 8 Cir.2003) (inter

No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. hups://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Full&prit=HTMLE&mt=FederalGov... 2/27/2008 EFTA00192004 504 F.3d 737 504 F.3d 737, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,330, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,672 (Cite as: 504 F.3d 737) use," "sexual abuse," or "abusive sexua

See supra p. 33. FN 10. See supra n. 2. FN I 1. Defendant's reliance on United States v. Brown, 801 F.2d 352 (8th Cir.1986), is misplaced. In Brown, the Eighth Circuit determined that the defend- ant had breached a cooperation agree- ment, thus permitting the government to prosecute him for the

ks. Page 4 haps://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv-Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt... 6/8/2009 EFTA00182793 Page 2 of 11 Westlaw. 162 F.3d 832 162 F.3d 832 (Cite as: 162 F.3d 832) C United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ra

in Shafer. In addition, Defendant has not even alleged that he would be prejudiced by the equita- ble tolling. See Baldwin County Welcome Cir. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (discussing prejudice to the defendant as a factor the court must consider when determin

why the district court erred in denying the motion. uii Conseq tly, we consider the issue waived. See Wilburn Mid-South Health Dev., Inc., 343 F.3d 1274, 1 1 (10th Cir.2003) ("We ... will not ( consider issues that are raised n appeal but not adequately addressed"); Adler Wal-Mart Stores, In