# docs_fts_content

c1: EFTA00027567
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027567.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
i
(USANYS)"
Subject: DRAFT SDNY PRESS GUIDANCE FOR WEDNESDAY JULY 31, 2019
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:51:31 +0000
Importance: High
Inline-Images: image001.png
Chiefs: below is the draft daily press guidance for tomorrow, Wednesday, July 31, 2019. Please reply with any
needed additions, deletions, or corrections.
EFTA00027567

=== Page 2 ===
Thanks,
The Press Office.
OF JUSTICE QUI PRO UNITED DONINES VILLING
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Southern District of New York
STATES
PRESS GUIDANCE
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
-
PROCEEDINGS AND EVENTS
-
11:00 a.m. - Pretrial conference in U.S. V. Jeffrey Epstein - the defendant is charged with sexually exploiting and
abusing dozens of underage girls by enticing them to engage in sex acts with him in exchange for money, and
allegedly working with several employees and associates to ensure that he had a steady supply of minor victims
to abuse, and paid several of those victims themselves to recruit other underage girls to engage in similar sex acts
for money - before Judge Berman (courtroom 17B, 500 Pearl Street).
-
NIGHT DUTY OFFICER
Follow us on Facebook I Follow us on Twitter | SDNY website | YouTube
*** FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY ***
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PRESS
OFFICE AT (212) 637-2600.
EFTA00027568


c1: EFTA00028415
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028415.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: Epstein case/NYPD Sex Offender Monitoring Unit
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 19:18:09 +0000
Importance: Normal
Lt.
Understood, and thanks very much. Just on the risk assessment, is there any way at all for them to pull that? We expect
we may get questions on it at the bail hearing on Monday, so totally understand it's with the vendor but if it's all possible
to pull that file so we can have a copy that would be great - just wanted to check.
thanks very much again,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 08:25
To:
)
Cc:
is
Subject: Re: Epstein case/NYPD Sex Offender Monitoring Unit
The discovery of the photographs will not have any effect on, nor will it alter, the status of his sex offender
registration. We have conferred with the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) in Albany in order to
obtain his case file which would include the risk assessment. They are in the middle of a multi-year project to
digitally scan all of their docs and the Epstein file is with the vendor. We should have it within 10 days.
Lt. Craig
New York City Police Department
Special Victims Division
Commanding Officer
Sex Offender Monitoring Unit
100 Centre Street, N.Y, N.Y.
212-323-6795 office
917-882-2650 (cell)
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 12:30 AM
To:
CRAIG
Cc:
);
Subject: RE: Epstein case/NYPD Sex Offender Monitoring Unit
Lt.
Thanks very much for being in touch, and I'm in receipt of your email - should Mr. Epstein be granted bail and released, I
will certainly advise his attorneys that he or they must contact you immediately to arrange for the processes required in
EFTA00028415

=== Page 2 ===
New York State. I'm also copying my colleagues on the case, prosecutors
and
so they're
aware of the issue as well.
Separately, at the bail hearing yesterday the judge asked if there is any effect from the discovery of nude and partially-
nude photographs of women and girls who appear to be young, including possibly under 18 years of age, discovered
during a search on Saturday in his New York residence. Do you know if there is any impact of that with respect to his New
York registration and/or offender status? Or if there's another person I should check with about that? I'm happy to give
anyone a call.
Similarly, I believe that there may have been a 2011 state risk assessment in connection with Epstein-is it possible to
obtain a copy of that?
thanks very much,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 12:22
To:
Subject: Epstein case/NYPD Sex Offender Monitoring Unit
Mr.
Thank you very much for taking the time today to speak to me regarding the Epstein case. As I mentioned Mr.
Epstein is a registered Level 3 sex offender in the State Of New York and should he be released and establish
residence in NYC he is legally obligated to appear at my office ever 90 days. In addition, he is required to have a
new photo taken every 3 years (his current photo is 9 years old). If he is released his immediate appearance at
my office should be mandatory. Please feel free to reach out to me should you have any additional questions or
concerns in this matter.
Lt.
New York City Police Department
Special Victims Division
Commanding Officer
Sex Offender Monitoring Unit
Room 1414
100 Centre Street, N.Y, N.Y.
EFTA00028416


c1: EFTA00027106
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027106.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Epstein - Additional Requests/ Interviews
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 15:06:13 +0000
Copy, I will work on that right now
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
New York Field Office
One Battery Park Plaza, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10004
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 10:38 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein - Additional Requests/ Interviews
We just spoke with OCME, and they would like (i) the responding ambulance reports; and (ii) physical descriptions (height
and weight) for
Could you please get us this information?
Second, below are the people that we would like to set up voluntary interviews with in the next few days.
can you
please reach out to
to set these up:
Name
Position
Shift
OPS Lt.
8/10 from 12-8
Internal
8/10 from 12-8
Internal
8/9 from 4-12
Internal
8/9 from 4-12
Control
8/10 from 12-8
Control
8/9 from 4-12
Control
8/9 from 2-10
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00027106


c1: EFTA00028074
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028074.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: 19-2221 United States of America V. Epstein "Notice of Appearance for Additional or Substitute
Counsel FILED"
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:03:49 +0000
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits
attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of
all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees
apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first
viewing.
Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was filed on 07/24/2019
Case Name:
United States of America V. Epstein
Case Number: 19-2221
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of
America, FILED. Service date 07/24/2019 by CM/ECF. [2616568] [19-2221]
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Reid Weingarten, -:
,
Donnell G. Bolden, Deputy Clerk:
, Assistant U.S. Attorney:
Notice will be stored in the notice cart for:
Donnell G. Bolden, Deputy Clerk
Quality Control 1
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: Notice of Appearance for Additional or Substitute Counsel FILED
Original Filename: Moe NOA.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1161632333 [Date=07/24/2019] [FileNumber=2616568-0]
[57fbc682e92382999bf4e0d7dc0adeeaa766c50c9591a97998820839ec49bfa5e61e16217343525c22270aa27948c
31173cbc81f1edd050588f3837ae964a3e3]]
EFTA00028074


c1: EFTA00029193
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029193.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: TC with Reid Weingarten re Epstein
Start Date: 2019-11-19 21:30:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-11-19 22:00:00 +0000
Location:
S office
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2019-11-19 23:51:15 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-11-19 23:51:15 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-11-19 20:17:10 +0000
Attendee:
(USANYS)
EFTA00029193


c1: EFTA00029142
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029142.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "
To:
Bcc: "USAHUB-USAJournal111"
Subject: Accepted: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Call w/ SDNY re: discovery, Epstein investigation
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:04:33 +0000
Embedded: Accepted:_[EXTERNAL_EMAIL]_-
_Call_w__SDNY_re:_discovery,_Epstein_investigation.msg
Sender:
Subject: Accepted: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Call w/ SDNY re: discovery, Epstein investigation
Message-Id:
<BN3P110MB02262B11EA2FD3B7A1FB2A21C21D0@BN3P110MB0226.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.CO
M>
Recipient:
EFTA00029142


c1: EFTA00028363
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028363.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: expected unsealing and wheel-out tomorrow
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 21:00:49 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 2019-07-08,_JE,_government_unsealing_request_and_proposed_order.pdf
Dear Judge Pitman,
With apologies for being in touch over the weekend, we wanted to write to advise you regarding our expected application
tomorrow morning to unseal Indictment 19 Cr. 490, United States V. Jeffrey Epstein, and to have a district judge assigned
to the case (from Wheel C). Attached is an electronic copy of the application and proposed order we expect to formally
submit first thing tomorrow morning, in case that is useful for the Court to have in advance.
We believe that Judge Moses may have advised you that this presentment might occur on Monday, but we also wanted to
be in touch directly, particularly because we expect there may be significant press and public attention and attendance at
a proceeding before your honor, if the district judge refers presentment.
If you would prefer that we schedule an early-morning time tomorrow to come to court to submit the application and
effect a wheel-out, we would be happy to be available as early as is practicable for the Court, or otherwise we will call
chambers in the morning for guidance on what the Court prefers. And I am available for any questions anytime in the
interim, or tomorrow, via phone at
Thank you.
Respectfully
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00028363


c1: EFTA00029523
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029523.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS)"
To:
"
(NY) (FBI)"
Subject: RE: Epstein
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:41:13 +0000
Importance: Normal
Just tried you. Am at my desk:
or, failing that, cell is
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 11:30 AM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Epstein
Good morning
,
Can you give me a call when you have a second?
Thank you
-
On Jul 2, 2019 3:58 PM,
(USANYS)"
wrote:
Hey
- Quick follow up to yesterday's meeting. Let me know if you have a few minutes for a call this afternoon.
Thanks,
EFTA00029523


c1: EFTA00027438
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027438.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
11
Bcc: "USAHUB-USAJournal111"
Subject: Maxwell Related Question
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 01:47:24 +0000
Embedded: Maxwell_Related_Question.msg
Sender:
Subject: Maxwell Related Question
Message-Id:
<CY1P110MB0184076FE3FB72E67BBE17AC8ACD0@CY1P110MB0184.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.CO
M>
To:
Cc:
Cc:
EFTA00027438


c1: EFTA00027560
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027560.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
LexisNexis®
21-58, United States of America V. Maxwell
US Circuit Court of Appeals - 02nd Circuit
This case was retrieved on 03/31/2021
Header
Case Number: 21-58
Date Filed: 01/12/2021
Date Full Case Retrieved: 03/31/2021
Status:
Misc: (0) 0: ; Appeal
Associated Cases
Case Number
Relationship
Lead Case
Member Case
Additional Information
Current Case: Consolidated
21-58
21-770
StartDate: 03/24/2021
Proceedings
Availability
Date
#
Proceeding Text
Details
03/24
NOTICE OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, with district court
/2021
docket, on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, FILED.
[3065965] [21-770]
03/24
ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record,
/2021
FILED.[3065978] [21-770]
03/29
/2021
NOTE: See lead case, 21-58, containing complete set of
docket entries. [3065985] [21-770]
Free
03/29
NEW CASE 21-770, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell,
/2021
FILED. [3065988] [21-58]
Free
03/30
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL
/2021
COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of
America in 21-770, 21-58, FILED. Service date
03/30/2021 by CM/ECF. [3066424] [21-770, 21-58]
Free
03/30
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL
/2021
COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of
America in 21-770, 21-58, FILED. Service date
03/30/2021 by CM/ECF. [3066859] [21-770, 21-58]
Free
03/30
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS SUBSTITUTE
/2021
COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell in
21-770, 21-58, FILED. Service date 03/30/2021 by
CM/ECF. [3066932] [21-770, 21-58]
Copyright © LexisNexis CourtLink, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*** THIS DATA IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY ***
EFTA00027560

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2 of 2
21-58, United States of America V. Maxwell
End of Document
EFTA00027561


c1: EFTA00027912
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027912.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Roberta Kaplan
To:
)"
Subject: Fwd: Epstein Victims' Compensation Program
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:48:48 +0000
FYI
Roberta ("Robbie") Kaplan, Esq.
Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
350 Fifth Avenue I Suite 7110
New York, New York 10118
From: Kate L. Doniger
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 4:55:53 PM
To: Mariann Wang
>; ; Arick Fudali
>; Daniel Mullkoff
>; Brad Edwards
>; Sigrid McCawley
>; Sabina Mariella
>; David Brodie
is
Lisa Bloom
>; ; Brittany Henderson
>; ; ECF <ecf@epllc.com>; Laura Starr
is
>; ; Josh Schiller
>; Andrew Buzin
>; Benjamin Margulis
>; Andrew
Villacastin
>; Gloria Allred
>; ; Colleen Mullen
Cc:
>; ; Julie Fink
>; ; Alex Conlon
Subject: FW: Epstein Victims' Compensation Program
All,
FYI, please see below. Happy to discuss.
Best,
Kate
Kate L. Doniger Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
350 Fifth Avenue Suite 7110
New York, New York 10118
(W)
I (M)
From: Kate L. Doniger
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 4:47 PM
To: Jordy Feldman
Cc:
>; ; Julie Fink
>; Alex Conlon
>; Rachel Harris <rharris@loeb.com>;
Subject: RE: Epstein Victims' Compensation Program
On behalf of Roberta Kaplan
EFTA00027912

=== Page 2 ===
Jordy,
Thank you for your email. We appreciate your commitment to a program that is independent of the Estate, which we also
view as a central feature of any viable alternative to litigation. As I'm sure you can understand, however, a claims
resolution program in which the three decision-makers were selected and hired by the Estate-and, we presume, are
being paid by the Estate-cannot be said to be independent. In our view, there is a straightforward solution to this
otherwise intractable problem: the program should add a fourth administrator, selected by plaintiffs, and require that all
claims decisions are rendered unanimously.
We look forward to discussing this proposal with you. We suggest arranging a time to do so before the protocol is
finalized, since it will be important to incorporate the input of an additional administrator into that process. We will, of
course, also raise this with the Estate.
("Robbie")
Esq.
Hecker & Fink LLP
350 Fifth Avenue I Suite 7110
New York, New York 10118
From: Jordy Feldman
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 7:24 PM
To:
L. Doniger
is
Cc: Julie Fink
>; Alex Conlon
>; Mariann Wang
>; Arick Fudali
>; Daniel Mullkoff
>; Brad
Edwards
is
Lisa Bloom
>; Brittany
Henderson
>; ECF <ecf@epllc.com>; Laura Starr
is
Andrew Buzin
>; Gloria Allred
>; Colleen
Mullen
is
Subject: RE: Epstein Victims' Compensation Program
Thank you for your email. I hear your concerns and want to reiterate that this proposed Program is entirely voluntary and
independent of the Estate. It in no way imposes a process or outcome on the victims, and will in no way be administered
or controlled by the Estate. Those are signature features of the Program.
As I mentioned in my email last week, Ken, Camille and I are in the process of drafting a claims protocol and plan to
circulate it - in draft form - to you and your counterparts before the holidays, and welcome any input you may have at
that time. We will provide ample time for you to review and respond to the draft protocol, and will be happy and
available to discuss your comments before the protocol is finalized.
We look forward to speaking with you.
Regards,
Jordy
From:
L. Doniger
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 9:05 PM
To: Jordy Feldman
Cc:
>; Julie Fink
>; Alex Conlon
>; Mariann Wang
>; Arick Fudali
>; Daniel
Mullkoff
>; ; Brad Edwards
; Lisa Bloom
>; Brittany Henderson
>; ; ECF <ecf@epllc.com>; Laura Starr
EFTA00027913

=== Page 3 ===
is
; Andrew Buzin
>; Gloria Allred
>; Colleen Mullen
is
Subject: RE: Epstein Victims' Compensation Program
On behalf of
-
Jordy,
Thank you for reaching out to us. We are writing back on behalf of (and copying) certain plaintiffs' counsel who
appeared at an SDNY conference last week for sexual abuse survivors of Epstein. We intend no disrespect to
you and your colleagues, but, candidly, we have serious concerns about the Estate's purported decision to
impose a non-binding settlement process on our clients unilaterally. All of these women still struggle today
because of the profound manipulation, objectification, and physical abuse to which Jeffrey Epstein subjected
each of them. Regardless of your own significant experience and good intentions, the fact that the Estate chose
an administrator without any participation, input, or consideration of our clients' views or wishes is
disconcerting, particularly given the personal nature of the claims at issue.
We are, of course, interested above all in advancing our clients' interests. As you may know, at a status
conference last week in the Southern District, Magistrate Judge Freeman instructed counsel for the Estate and
counsel for plaintiffs to engage in good faith discussions about any proposed claim resolution program. We
have already directed a request for information on the proposed program to Bennet Moskowitz, and look
forward to his response and to a productive dialogue with counsel ahead of the Jan. 10, 2019 deadline set by
the Magistrate for an update on the status of our negotiations. Assuming that our settlement discussions with
Defendants progress, we look forward to working with you at the appropriate time to design an effective and
appropriate settlement program.
Roberta ("Robbie") Kaplan, Esq.
Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
350 Fifth Avenue I Suite 7110
New York, New York 10118
From: Jordy Feldman
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 4:00 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein Victims' Compensation Program
Roberta,
As you know, I will be serving as co-Designer, along with Ken Feinberg and Camille Biros, and Administrator of
the proposed Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. I wanted to reach out to you to introduce myself, as I
understand that you represent victims who have asserted, or may assert, claims of sexual abuse against Jeffrey
Epstein or his Estate. I also wanted to reinforce the key guiding principles of the Program and give you a sense
of timing in the near term.
This proposed Program is purely voluntary, non-adversarial and entirely independent of the Estate. The Estate
will have no authority whatsoever to interfere with the administration of the Program or the evaluation of
individual claims.
EFTA00027914

=== Page 4 ===
Ken, Camille and I are in the process of drafting a proposed protocol - setting forth the proposed terms,
conditions, and criteria that will govern the Program - and plan to circulate a draft protocol before the end of
the year. We will be seeking your input at that time in whatever format you would like to provide it, through a
meeting with us and/or written comments, before the protocol is finalized.
We look forward to serving these deserving victims.
Regards,
Jordy
This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product or other
applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you.
This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product or other
applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you.
EFTA00027915


c1: EFTA00029252
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029252.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To: Mark Steward <Mark.Steward@fca.org.uk>, Kate Tuckley <Kate.Tuckley@fca.org.uk>
Cc:
(USANYS)"
>, Kelly Eldred <Kelly.Eldred@fca.org.uk>, "Harry Caldecott"
<Harry.Caldecott@fca.org.uk>, Kelly Eldred <Kelly.Eldred@fca.org.uk>, Harry Caldecott
<Harry.Caldecott@fca.org.uk>
Subject: RE: Confidential & Urgent
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 17:17:32 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png
Mark - Hope you had a good weekend and just wanted to circle back on this. Realizing it is starting to get a bit late in the
day in London, would tomorrow morning (New York time) work for a follow up call on this? Perhaps around 10am our
time/3pm in London? If so, we can circulate another dial in.
Thanks,
From: Mark Steward <Mark.Steward@fca.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2019 12:59 PM
To:
(USANYS)
>; ; Kate Tuckley <Kate.Tuckley@fca.org.uk>
Cc:
>;
(USANYS)
>; ; Kelly Eldred
<Kelly.Eldred@fca.org.uk>; Harry Caldecott <Harry.Caldecott@fca.org.uk>; Kelly Eldred <Kelly.Eldred@fca.org.uk>; Harry
Caldecott <Harry.Caldecott@fca.org.uk>
Subject: RE: Confidential & Urgent
Thanks for taking the call today and look forward to speaking again early next week. And happy
Thanksgiving !
Kind regards
Mark Steward
Executive Director
Enforcement and Market Oversight
FCA
FINANCIAL
CONDUCT
AUTHORITY
12 Endeavour Square
London
E20 1JN
Tel: +44 (0)20 7066 1600
www.fca.org.uk
Follow us:
in
Private Secretary: Harry Caldecott (harry.caldecott@fca.org.uk)
Personal Assistant: Kelly Eldred (kelly.eldred@fca.org.uk)
From:
(USANYS) [mailto:
Sent: 28 November 2019 15:57
EFTA00029252

=== Page 2 ===
To: Kate Tuckley <Kate.Tuckley@fca.org.uk>
Cc: Mark Steward <Mark.Steward@fca.org.uk>;
(USANYS)
>; Kelly Eldred <Kelly.Eldred@fca.org.uk>; Harry Caldecott
<Harry.Caldecott@fca.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Confidential & Urgent
To allow a few of my colleagues to join, can we instead use a dial in:
Thanks, and talk soon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 28, 2019, at 10:31 AM, Kate Tuckley <Kate.Tuckley@fca.org.uk> wrote:
Great much appreciated thanks
From:
(USANYS) [mailto:
Sent: 28 November 2019 15:30
To: Kate Tuckley <Kate.Tuckley@fca.org.uk>
Cc: Mark Steward <Mark.Steward@fca.org.uk>;
;
(USANYS)
>; Kelly Eldred <Kelly.Eldred@fca.org.uk>; Harry Caldecott
<Harry.Caldecott@fca.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Confidential & Urgent
Okay, please call my cell:
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 28, 2019, at 10:25 AM, Kate Tuckley <Kate.Tuckley@fca.org.uk> wrote:
Hi
I have spoken to Mark's business support and he is available at 4.15pm (UK time) today (ie in just
under an hour's time). It is quite urgent so if we could speak then it would be greatly appreciated.
If that does work please let us know what number to call you on?
Many thanks
From:
(USANYS) [mailto:
Sent: 28 November 2019 14:53
To: Mark Steward <Mark.Steward@fca.org.uk>
Cc:
;
(USANYS)
>; Kate
Tuckley <Kate.Tuckley@fca.org.uk>; Kelly Eldred <Kelly.Eldred@fca.org.uk>; Harry Caldecott
<Harry.Caldecott@fca.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Confidential & Urgent
Hi Mark - Thanks for reaching out. We do have an active investigation and would be happy to talk. As you likely know,
today is a holiday in the US. Is this something we could discuss on Monday or is it more urgent than that? Thanks, Ted
EFTA00029253

=== Page 3 ===
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 28, 2019, at 9:28 AM, Mark Steward <Mark.Steward@fca.org.uk> wrote:
Dear
,
Can I ask whether this is still an active matter ? if so, I wonder if we could speak
when it is convenient.
Cheers
Mark Steward
Executive Director
Enforcement and Market Oversight
<image001.png>
12 Endeavour Square
London
E20 1JN
Tel: +44 (0)20 7066 1600
www.fca.org.uk
Follow us:
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
Private Secretary: Harry Caldecott (harry.caldecott@fca.org.uk)
Personal Assistant: Kelly Eldred (kelly.eldred@fca.org.uk)
From:
Sent: 28 November 2019 14:25
To: Mark Steward <Mark.Steward@fca.org.uk>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Kate Tuckley <Kate.Tuckley@fca.org.uk>; Kelly Eldred <Kelly.Eldred@fca.org.uk>; Harry Caldecott
<Harry.Caldecott@fca.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Confidential & Urgent
Looping in
They run our
unit and oversee the Epstein case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 28, 2019, at 8:30 AM, Mark Steward <Mark.Steward@fca.org.uk> wrote:
Hi
Can you let me know, urgently, whether anyone in your office is handling the investigation into
Jeffery Epstein, especially anything in relation to JP Morgan (he was a client of their private wealth
division) and, if so, who, as we need to have a chat. If this is not in SDNY, do you know who is
handling ongoing work into Mr E's world ?
Cheers
Mark Steward
EFTA00029254

=== Page 4 ===
Executive Director
Enforcement and Market Oversight
<image001.png>
12 Endeavour Square
London
E20 1JN
Tel: +44 (0)20 7066 1600
www.fca.org.uk
Follow us:
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
Private Secretary: Harry Caldecott (harry.caldecott@fca.org.uk)
Personal Assistant: Kelly Eldred (kelly.eldred@fca.org.uk)
This communication and any attachments may contain personal information. For more information about how and
why we use personal information and who to contact with any queries about this, please see our privacy notices:
FCA Privacy Notice (https://www.fca.org.uk/data-protection) and PSR Privacy Notice
(https://www.psr.org.uk/cookies-privacy-and-data-protection).
This communication and any attachments contain information which is confidential and may be subject to legal
privilege. It is for intended recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute,
publish, rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some of our communications may contain confidential
information which it could be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority. If you have received
this email in error please notify postmaster@fca.org.uk immediately and delete the email from your computer.
Further information on the classification and handling of FCA information can be found on the FCA website
(http://www.fca.org.uk/site-info/legal/fca-classified-information)
The FCA (or, if this email originates from the Payment Systems Regulator Limited, the FCA on behalf of the Payment
Systems Regulator Limited / the Payment Systems Regulator Limited) reserves the right to monitor all email
communications for compliance with legal, regulatory and professional standards.
This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal relations or contractual relationships. This
email has originated from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), or the Payment Systems Regulator Limited.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 1920623.
Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
The Payment Systems Regulator Limited is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 8970864.
Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
Switchboard 020 7066 1000
Web Site http://www.fca.org.uk (FCA); http://www.psr.org.uk (the Payment Systems Regulator Limited)
This communication and any attachments may contain personal information. For more information about how and
why we use personal information and who to contact with any queries about this, please see our privacy notices:
FCA Privacy Notice (https://www.fca.org.uk/data-protection) and PSR Privacy Notice
(https://www.psr.org.uk/cookies-privacy-and-data-protection).
This communication and any attachments contain information which is confidential and may be subject to legal
privilege. It is for intended recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute,
EFTA00029255

=== Page 5 ===
publish, rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some of our communications may contain confidential
information which it could be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority. If you have received this
email in error please notify postmaster@fca.org.uk immediately and delete the email from your computer. Further
information on the classification and handling of FCA information can be found on the FCA website
(http://www.fca.org.uk/site-info/legal/fca-classified-information).
The FCA (or, if this email originates from the Payment Systems Regulator Limited, the FCA on behalf of the Payment
Systems Regulator Limited / the Payment Systems Regulator Limited) reserves the right to monitor all email
communications for compliance with legal, regulatory and professional standards.
This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal relations or contractual relationships. This
email has originated from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), or the Payment Systems Regulator Limited.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 1920623.
Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
The Payment Systems Regulator Limited is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 8970864.
Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
Switchboard 020 7066 1000
Web Site http://www.fca.org.uk (FCA); http://www.psr.org.uk (the Payment Systems Regulator Limited)
This communication and any attachments may contain personal information. For more information about how and
why we use personal information and who to contact with any queries about this, please see our privacy notices: FCA
Privacy Notice (https://www.fca.org.uk/data-protection) and PSR Privacy Notice (https://www.psr.org.uk/cookies-
privacy-and-data-protection).
This communication and any attachments contain information which is confidential and may be subject to legal
privilege. It is for intended recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute, publish,
rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some of our communications may contain confidential information
which it could be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority. If you have received this email in error
please notify postmaster@fca.org.uk immediately and delete the email from your computer. Further information on
the classification and handling of FCA information can be found on the FCA website (http://www.fca.org.uk/site-
info/legal/fca-classified-information).
The FCA (or, if this email originates from the Payment Systems Regulator Limited, the FCA on behalf of the Payment
Systems Regulator Limited / the Payment Systems Regulator Limited) reserves the right to monitor all email
communications for compliance with legal, regulatory and professional standards.
This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal relations or contractual relationships. This email
has originated from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), or the Payment Systems Regulator Limited.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 1920623.
Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
The Payment Systems Regulator Limited is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 8970864.
Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
Switchboard 020 7066 1000
Web Site http://www.fca.org.uk (FCA); http://www.psr.org.uk (the Payment Systems Regulator Limited)
EFTA00029256

=== Page 6 ===
This communication and any attachments may contain personal information. For more information about how and why
we use personal information and who to contact with any queries about this, please see our privacy notices: FCA Privacy
Notice (https://www.fca.org.uk/data-protection) and PSR Privacy Notice (https://www.psr.org.uk/cookies-privacy-and-
data-protection).
This communication and any attachments contain information which is confidential and may be subject to legal
privilege. It is for intended recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute, publish,
rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some of our communications may contain confidential information
which it could be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority. If you have received this email in error
please notify postmaster@fca.org.uk immediately and delete the email from your computer. Further information on the
classification and handling of FCA information can be found on the FCA website (http://www.fca.org.uk/site-
info/legal/fca-classified-information).
The FCA (or, if this email originates from the Payment Systems Regulator Limited, the FCA on behalf of the Payment
Systems Regulator Limited / the Payment Systems Regulator Limited) reserves the right to monitor all email
communications for compliance with legal, regulatory and professional standards.
This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal relations or contractual relationships. This email
has originated from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), or the Payment Systems Regulator Limited.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 1920623. Registered
office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
The Payment Systems Regulator Limited is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 8970864.
Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
Switchboard 020 7066 1000
Web Site http://www.fca.org.uk (FCA); http://www.psr.org.uk (the Payment Systems Regulator Limited)
This communication and any attachments may contain personal information. For more information about how
and why we use personal information and who to contact with any queries about this, please see our privacy
notices: FCA Privacy Notice (https://www.fca.org.uk/data-protection) and PSR Privacy Notice
(https://www.psr.org.uk/cookies-privacy-and-data-protection)
This communication and any attachments contain information which is confidential and may be subject to legal
privilege. It is for intended recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute,
publish, rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some of our communications may contain confidential
information which it could be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority. If you have
received this email in error please notify postmaster@fca.org.uk immediately and delete the email from your
computer. Further information on the classification and handling of FCA information can be found on the FCA
website (http://www.fca.org.uk/site-info/legal/fca-classified-information)
The FCA (or, if this email originates from the Payment Systems Regulator Limited, the FCA on behalf of the
Payment Systems Regulator Limited / the Payment Systems Regulator Limited) reserves the right to monitor all
email communications for compliance with legal, regulatory and professional standards.
This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal relations or contractual relationships. This
email has originated from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), or the Payment Systems Regulator Limited.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 1920623.
Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
EFTA00029257

=== Page 7 ===
The Payment Systems Regulator Limited is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 8970864.
Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
Switchboard 020 7066 1000
Web Site http://www.fca.org.uk (FCA); http://www.psr.org.uk (the Payment Systems Regulator Limited)
EFTA00029258


c1: EFTA00027101
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027101.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(OIG)"
To:
"
(NY) (FBI)"
(NY) (OGA)
(FBI)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: Epstein's TruView
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:32:50 +0000
Attachments: Epstein's_TruView.pdf; Epstein's_photograph.pdf
Attached is the commissary records and official BOP photo
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
New York Field Office
From:
(OIG)
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 8:28 AM
To:
(OIG) <
Subject: Epstein's TruView
Hi
Attached find Epstein's TruView account and photograph. As I mentioned to you, the only item that comes up on his
account are 3 transactions, where he received money from 3 different people. See the attachment for further details.
Thanks.
EFTA00027101


c1: EFTA00029194
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029194.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Maxwell Jury Exercise Takeaways.docx
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 21:15:08 +0000
Attachments: Maxwell_Jury_Exercise_Takeaways.docx
Looks good - a few suggestions in the intro (maybe for footnotes depending on the format).
EFTA00029194


c1: EFTA00028705
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028705.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: order of proof meeting
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 22:32:31 +0000
Attachments: 2021.06.02_Maxwell_Scheduling_Order_(trial_schedule).pdf
Attached is the scheduling order for pretrial filings.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 5:28 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: order of proof meeting
Great.
and I are doing a brown bag for the summer interns until 1:30 on the 14th, but we should be free that
afternoon. I'm also free the morning of the 15th. If possible and assuming you're all comfortable with it, could we meet in
person?
On Jun 2, 2021, at 5:20 PM
wrote:
Following up on our conversation this morning, the team is free for an order of proof meeting during the following
windows:
Anytime after 12 p.m. on June 14th
Anytime before 12 p.m. June 15th
We chatted as a team, and we're going to be working on the RTC and a Daubert motion over the summer, as we
discussed. Time permitting, we're likely going to work ahead on a 404(b) motion as well.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00028705


c1: EFTA00029145
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029145.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
Cc:
)"
Subject: Application for Amended SW
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:06:33 +0000
Attachments: Application for Amended Warrant for _3_Drives_from_NY_Residence.docx; Exhibit A -
July _11,_2019_Warrant.pdf; Exhibit_B_-_Application_for_June_2020_Warrant.pdf;
Exhibit C - June 2020_Warrant.pdf; Exhibit D - _Maxwell_Superseding_Indictment_- -
_S1_20_Cr_330_(AJN)_(docketed).pdf
Chiefs,
Thanks very much for talking this morning. As discussed, attached is a draft application for an amended search warrant
correcting the FBI barcode numbers for 3 devices that were seized from Epstein's NY residence. In case it's useful, I'm also
attaching the exhibits that are referenced in the draft application.
Thanks,
EFTA00029145


c1: EFTA00029283
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029283.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: Mark Steward <Mark.Steward@fca.org.uk>,
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Cc: Kate Tuckley <Kate.Tuckley@fca.org.uk>, Kelly Eldred <Kelly.Eldred@fca.org.uk>, Harry
Caldecott <Harry.Caldecott@fca.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Confidential & Urgent
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:24:37 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image002(1).png; image003(1).png
Looping in
They run our public corruption unit and oversee the Epstein case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 28, 2019, at 8:30 AM, Mark Steward <Mark.Steward@fca.org.uk> wrote:
Hi
Can you let me know, urgently, whether anyone in your office is handling the investigation into Jeffery
Epstein, especially anything in relation to JP Morgan (he was a client of their private wealth division) and,
if so, who, as we need to have a chat. If this is not in SDNY, do you know who is handling ongoing work
into Mr E's world ?
Cheers
Mark Steward
Executive Director
Enforcement and Market Oversight
<image001.png>
12 Endeavour Square
London
E20 1JN
Tel: +44 (0)20 7066 1600
www.fca.org.uk
Follow us:
in
Private Secretary: Harry Caldecott (harry.caldecott@fca.org.uk)
Personal Assistant: Kelly Eldred (kelly.eldred@fca.org.uk)
This communication and any attachments may contain personal information. For more information about how
and why we use personal information and who to contact with any queries about this, please see our privacy
notices: FCA Privacy Notice (https://www.fca.org.uk/data-protection) and PSR Privacy Notice
(https://www.psr.org.uk/cookies-privacy-and-data-protection).
This communication and any attachments contain information which is confidential and may be subject to legal
privilege. It is for intended recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute,
publish, rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some of our communications may contain confidential
EFTA00029283

=== Page 2 ===
information which it could be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority. If you have
received this email in error please notify postmaster@fca.org.uk immediately and delete the email from your
computer. Further information on the classification and handling of FCA information can be found on the FCA
website (http://www.fca.org.uk/site-info/legal/fca-classified-information).
The FCA (or, if this email originates from the Payment Systems Regulator Limited, the FCA on behalf of the
Payment Systems Regulator Limited / the Payment Systems Regulator Limited) reserves the right to monitor
all email communications for compliance with legal, regulatory and professional standards.
This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal relations or contractual relationships.
This email has originated from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), or the Payment Systems Regulator
Limited.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 1920623.
Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
The Payment Systems Regulator Limited is registered as a limited company in England and Wales No.
8970864. Registered office: 12 Endeavour Square, Stratford, London, E20 1JN, United Kingdom
Switchboard 020 7066 1000
Web Site http://www.fca.org.uk (FCA); http://www.psr.org.uk (the Payment Systems Regulator Limited)
FCA
FINANCIAL
CONDUCT
AUTHORITY
in
EFTA00029284


c1: EFTA00029524
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029524.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
(USANYS)"
Subject: ROLLING STONE; Who Is British Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's Longtime
Partner?
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 18:26:14 +0000
Importance: Normal
Who Is British Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey
Epstein's Longtime Partner?
The daughter of a British media mogul, Maxwell is alleged to
have served as a "madam" for her billionaire partner
Since hedge fund manager and well-connected billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on Saturday and
charged with sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy, the names of powerful men in his social
circle - including President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and, weirdly, former lead
investigator of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal Kenneth Starr - have popped up over and over and over again.
Notably, only one woman's name has made a recurring appearance in discussions of Epstein's crimes: that
of Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and Epstein's longtime confidante, who is alleged to have played a
pivotal role in procuring young women for him.
Although no charges have been filed against Maxwell - or anyone else in Epstein's inner circle, for
that matter - she has long been dogged by allegations that she played a pivotal role in procuring
young women for Epstein, and has been named in numerous civil suits to that effect. As for Epstein
himself, he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him on Monday. (Rolling Stone reached out to
Epstein's legal team for comment, but has not received a response. Maxwell has denied any
involvement in the past, with a representative calling the allegations "obvious lies.")
Surprisingly, given Maxwell's relatively high-profile role in both the English and American social
scenes, fairly little is known about her or the exact nature of her relationship with Epstein: she's been
alternately referred to as Epstein's romantic partner, his best friend, his fixer, and a "madam" catering
to his sexual desires. Here's what we do know about the woman who has been a member of Epstein's
inner circle for decades - and whether we can expect to see her playing a larger role in the criminal
proceedings against him.
Who is Ghislaine Maxwell?
Maxwell is the daughter of British media mogul Robert Maxwell, who owned and operated a number of
British tabloids and was at one point estimated to have been worth nearly $1.9 billion. She was
educated at the prestigious Marlborough boarding school in the U.K., and went on to study at Oxford.
The Maxwells were active in both British and American social circles, and the family apparently had
ties to Trump before even Epstein did: a 1989 clipping from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch lists Trump as
a guest on Robert Maxwell's yacht, the aptly named Lady Ghislaine. In 1991, Maxwell was found dead
EFTA00029524

=== Page 2 ===
under mysterious circumstances after reportedly having fallen overboard from the yacht. It was later
discovered that he was in a significant amount of debt at the time of his death, and had embezzled
from his employees' pension fund.
Before her father's death, Maxwell had already started building her credentials as a British socialite
and philanthropist; she founded the Kit-Cat Club, a social organization for working women, and
also served as director for a football club her father owned. Following her father's passing, however,
she moved to the United States, eager to escape the scrutiny of the U.K. tabloids. While she started out
working in real estate and living on the (relatively) modest trust fund sum of $100,000 a year, Maxwell
quickly rebounded from her father's passing and subsequent disgrace, according to a 2000 New York
Post profile, relying on the Maxwell family's powerful network of famous friends to regain her position
in the social world.
For the past two decades, Maxwell has held the types of board positions and charitable foundation
advisory roles favored by the uber-wealthy, founding the charitable organization the TerraMar Project,
which works to preserve the world's oceans, in 2012. She also continued to cultivate friendships
with extremely high-powered individuals such as Trump and Prince Andrew, reportedly introducing
Epstein to the latter in 1997 and former President Bill Clinton, even appearing as a guest at Chelsea
Clinton's wedding in 2010.
What is Ghislaine Maxwell's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?
According to the 2000 New York Post profile of Maxwell, Epstein and Maxwell began dating in the late 1990s;
the piece not-so-subtly implies that Maxwell largely viewed Epstein, who at that point had become extremely
wealthy from his investment firm J. Epstein & Co., as a strategic launch pad for her career as a New York City
philanthropist and socialite. Although their romantic relationship later fizzled out, the two developed a close
platonic bond, according to a 2003 Vanity Fair profile of Epstein, in which he refers to Maxwell as his "best
friend." The Vanity Fair profile depicts Maxwell as something of a high-end assistant to Epstein, with journalist
Vicky Ward writing that Maxwell "seems to organize much of his life," even making appointments with personal
yoga instructors for Epstein.
What is Ghislaine Maxwell's relationship to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes?
According to those who have accused Epstein of sexual abuse, Maxwell's predilection for managing his
life extended to his sex life as well. In 2018, Epstein and Maxwell settled a lawsuit brought against
them by a woman named
, who alleged that Maxwell hired her to give Epstein
massages at his home. Between 2006 and 2007,
alleged, the two promised to pay her tuition
to FIT in exchange for
providing sexual favors to Epstein and his friends, including lawyer
Alan Dershowitz. (Dershowitz has repeatedly denied the charges;
suit was settled in
2018 under undisclosed terms.)
Last April, another woman and former Epstein employee,
, alleged that Maxwell and
Epstein had sexually abused her and her 15-year-old sister on two separate occasions in the
mid-1990s. She also alleged that she frequently saw a "number of school-age girls" come to Epstein's
New York City home. "When I asked Maxwell why these young girls were coming over to the house so
often she said that the girls were interviewing for modeling positions,"
said. "At the time,
based on my observations at the home, it did not seem credible to me that these young girls were
interviewing for modeling positions."
allegations surfaced as the result of a defamation lawsuit filed against Dershowitz by
,
who also named Maxwell in a 2015 civil suit against Epstein. In the suit,
(then
identified as Jane Doe 3) alleged that during the summer of 1999, when she was 16 years old and
working as a towel girl at Trump's Palm Beach resort Mar-a-Lago, Maxwell recruited her to serve as
EFTA00029525

=== Page 3 ===
Epstein's massage therapist.
alleged that Maxwell and Epstein instructed her to have sex with
him and his friends, including Dershowitz. Dershowitz publicly denied her claims and accused
of making them up, prompting
to sue him for defamation. Last week, Dershowitz filed a motion
for a federal judge to dismiss the defamation suit.
After
original civil suit against Maxwell and Epstein was settled in 2017, a judge ordered that
2,000-odd pages of documents related to the case be sealed; however, earlier this month, a U.S. Court
of Appeals judge ruled that some of the documents could be unsealed, though it did not specify when.
Although prosecutors said during Epstein's initial court appearance on Monday that a superseding
indictment was not "imminent," it was "certainly possible" that charges may be filed against additional
individuals "down the road."
Maxwell has yet to issue a public statement following Epstein's arrest; Rolling Stone reached out to
Maxwell and the Terramar Project to request comment, but did not immediately receive a response.
Public Affairs
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of New York
I
Mobile:
I
Press Office:
EFTA00029526


c1: EFTA00028364
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028364.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
July 8, 2019
The Honorable Henry Pitman
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:
Unsealing of Indictment 19 Cr. 490
Dear Judge Pitman:
The Government respectfully requests that Indictment 19 Cr. 490 be unsealed and that a
United States District Judge be assigned to the case. A proposed order to that effect is attached.
This case is designated as a Wheel C case.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
By
Assistant United States Attorneys
Tel.:
Enclosure
EFTA00028364

=== Page 2 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Unsealing Order
— V. —
19 Cr. 490
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Upon the application of the United States, by the United States Attorney for the Southern
District of New York, Geoffrey S. Berman, by Assistant United States Attorney
;
It is found that the Indictment in the above-captioned case is currently sealed and the United
States Attorney's Office has applied to have that Indictment unsealed, and it is therefore:
ORDERED that the Indictment in the above-captioned action be unsealed and remain
unsealed pending further order of the Court.
Dated:
New York, New York
July 8, 2019
HONORABLE HENRY PITMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EFTA00028365

=== Page 3 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
ORDER
19 Cr. 490 ( )
(18 U.S.C. $$ 1591 & 371.)
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney.
EFTA00028366


c1: EFTA00029061
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029061.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: UMR
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 22:04:39 +0000
UMR number below
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 1:18 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: UMR
UMR Filed 2021-05-66021
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 8:22 AM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
in
(USANYS)
Subject: UMR
Can you please file this UMR and let this group know when it is done? Thanks.
TO:
THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PHONE:
DISTRICT POC:
U.S. Attorney
SYNOPSIS:
The USAO-SDNY plans to offer deferred prosecution agreements to two correctional officers, Tova Noel and Michael
Thomas, who were employed at the Manhattan Correctional Center ("MCC") and were previously charged with
making false statements and conspiring to (i) make false statements and (ii) interfere with or obstruct the lawful
function of the MCC. These charges, which were brought in November 2019, stem from the correctional officers'
falsification of institutional count and round forms on the night that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. The deferred
prosecution agreements will require, among other things, the defendants to cooperate with a pending Office of
Inspector General investigation by providing truthful information about the events in question; an admission of guilt
EFTA00029061

=== Page 2 ===
from both defendants as to the conduct set forth in the indictment; and for both defendants to complete 100 hours of
community service, preferably in an area related to the criminal justice system. The USAO-SDNY plans to file a public
letter by Friday, May 21 notifying the Court of the defendants' acceptance of the deferred prosecution agreements and
seeking a hearing date; the USAO-SDNY anticipates that the deferred prosecution agreements will be entered by the
Court by the following Friday, May 28.
DESCRIPTION:
On November 14, 2019, USAO-SDNY obtained an indictment against Tova Noel and Michael Thomas which charged
them with multiple counts of making false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1001, and conspiring to (i) make false
statements and (ii) interfere with or obstruct the lawful function of the MCC, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. As alleged
in the Indictment, on August 9 and 10, 2019, the defendants falsely indicated on Bureau of Prison forms that they had
completed required institutional counts and rounds. On August 10, 2019, inmate Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide
while housed in the Special Housing Unit at the MCC. After discovering Epstein's body, the defendants admitted to
their supervisor that they had failed to conduct at least some of the required counts and rounds. The falsification of
records occurred prior to their discovery of Epstein's body.
The USAO-SDNY plans to offer deferred prosecution agreements to both defendants. The USAO-SDNY has determined
that deferring the defendants' prosecution is an outcome consistent with the interests of justice, the mitigating
personal circumstances of the defendants, and the Department's practice in the overwhelming majority of other cases
in which correctional officers have been investigated or charged with falsifying count or round forms. As a condition of
the defendants' agreement, they will be required to admit their guilt and cooperate by providing truthful information
with the Office of Inspector General, which is preparing a report on, among other things, their conduct on the night in
question, the circumstances in which they discovered Epstein's body after his suicide, and the institutional failures that
led to Epstein's death at the MCC The agreement does not preclude any administrative action or termination by the
Bureau of Prisons. The defendants will also be subject to pretrial supervision for six months, must refrain from
committing any crimes, and will be required to complete 100 hours of community service. This outcome is supported
by the investigative agencies, the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, as well as the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and has been approved by Pretrial Services. The USAO-SDNY plans to send a public letter by May 21,
2021 to notify the Court that the Government has offered, and the defendants have accepted, deferred prosecution
agreements, and in order to request a hearing date, which the Government expects to be scheduled for the following
week, by May 28.
EFTA00029062


c1: EFTA00027753
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027753.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 350 Filed 10/15/21 Page 1 of 3
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
October 15, 2021
BY ECF
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
United States District Court
DOC #:
Southern District of New York
DATE FILED: 10/15/21
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan:
The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated
October 15, 2021 (Dkt. No. 348) ordering the Government to respond to the defendant's October
14, 2021 letter regarding delivery of the defendant's legal mail at the Metropolitan Detention
Center ("MDC") (Dkt. No. 346).
The Government conferred with legal counsel at the MDC in response to the Court's Order
and was informed of the following: As a general matter, legal mail from a defendant's counsel is
delivered to the defendant within one business day of receipt at the MDC. Legal mail sent to a
defendant from the Government via FedEx goes to the MDC's warehouse. Staff at the MDC's
warehouse process and log the mail in a tracking system and then contact the relevant
department-in this case, the legal department-about the mail. The legal department has to then
go to the warehouse to retrieve the mail, log the mail, assign the mail an internal number for
tracking purposes, and fill out a form authorizing the delivery of the mail to the inmate before
delivering the mail to the inmate.
Legal counsel at the MDC has explained to the Government that these are the MDC's
EFTA00027753

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 350 Filed 10/15/21 Page 2 of 3
Page 2
standard procedures for legal mail, and these protocols apply to each one of the approximately
1,700 inmates at the MDC. Legal counsel at the MDC has further explained that defense counsel's
request that the MDC be ordered to provide the defendant with all legal mail within one day of
receipt by the MDC would be extremely burdensome and is not practicable in light of the various
responsibilities of the MDC's legal department, which is responsible for issues relating to the
approximately 1,700 inmates at the MDC. The Government respectfully submits that there are no
circumstances that merit special expedited delivery for this defendant, and that the delivery of the
defendant's mail should not receive priority over the services the legal department's staff provides
to other inmates.
As noted in the defense's letter, the Government sent a hard drive containing Court-ordered
disclosures to the defendant via FedEx on October 11, 2021. The hard drive was received by the
MDC on October 12, 2021. Legal counsel at the MDC informed the Government that there was
an institutional emergency impacting the safety and security of the MDC on October 13, 2021,
such that no inmate at the MDC received any legal mail from the warehouse that day. On the
morning of October 14, 2021, legal counsel at the MDC personally delivered the hard drive to the
defendant.
The Government has made best efforts to obtain accurate information and respond to the
Court's Order within a short time frame. Should the Court have any questions or require any
additional details regarding this topic, the Government will confer with legal counsel at the MDC
and provide additional information.
EFTA00027754

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 350 Filed 10/15/21 Page 3 of 3
Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
By:
s/
Assistant United States Attorneys
Southern District of New York
Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF)
Based on the information in this letter, the Court will not enter the Defendant's requested order.
See Dkt. No. 346. However, it is the Court's firm expectation that a defendant in a pre-trial
posture like Ms. Maxwell will in most circumstances receive legal mail within approximately
1 business day. Going forward, if another delay occurs, the Defendant may renew the request
for a specific order requiring delivery within that time frame. With this understanding and in
light of the unusually early pre-trial disclosure schedule set by the Court, the Court remains
confident that Ms. Maxwell and her attorneys are fully able to prepare for trial. This resolves
Dkt. No. 346. so ORDERED.
Alin D. Netto
10/15/21
EFTA00027755


c1: EFTA00027444
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027444.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 19:17:47 +0000
Will do, and will keep you posted.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 15:16
To:
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Okay, let's do this - why don't you reach out to
and find out how long he thinks it will take him to do whatever
conversion/processing needs to happen, once we deal with the drive issue and he gets the data. See what the answer is
and what help he may need to get that done.
I'm happy to elevate on the FBI side (and Russell and I put this issue on the radar of the new ASAC when we spoke to him
on Monday), but let's get the answer from
first and then formulate the ask of CART as precisely as possible - do we
want them to be devoting more resources to completing the extractions of all the data faster? Do we want them to be
extracting in a different way? - before doing so.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:26 PM
To:
(USANYS)
in
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Yeah it's complicated, but the answer is that it's not consistent with the call we had a few weeks ago - in that call,
said that by June he would be able to give us the materials in a format that could be directly uploaded to Relativity. That
is, he would take all the pst files, pdf files, word files, images, etc etc, from something like 50+ devices and drives, and
convert all of those materials into TIFF documents with a load file (or something similar). That's how we ordinarily get
large productions from law firms or sophisticated subpoena recipients, for example - so that they're in a format that's
reviewable on one of a number of platforms, whether Relativity, Everlaw, Logikcull, etc. So we were expecting to get the
full set materials, totaling terabytes of docs, in Relativity-upload-ready format as of June.
Instead, the FBI is going to basically just give us copies of the original files from the collected devices and drives -
effectively the equivalent of a phone dump, or a copy of a hard drive. And we (or PAE, or another vendor) will have to
convert the original files into a format that can be uploaded to Relativity. I think that CART will have stripped out useless
files - system files, for example - but basically they're just sending us copies of what they gathered nine months ago,
which I think they could have done in October or November, and the time (and cost) of preparing that data for review will
be on our end. It's sort of like if I spent nine months working on what you expected would be a 300-page memo on a legal
issue, and then instead sent you a list of a thousand relevant case citations.
And the current delay is that FBI says they don't have hard drives to transmit the data, so
is in the process of
obtaining or purchasing hard drives to send to
Then the data needs to go to
because
needs to figure out
EFTA00027444

=== Page 2 ===
the volume of materials and determine how to best have the data processed, whether through PAE or another vendor,
and to do QC to make sure we got the docs in a format that can be processed.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 13:04
To:
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I'm not sure I follow - isn't
email below, if not exactly friendly, consistent with the call we all had a few weeks ago,
where we agreed that he needed to re-extract the non-media data so that it could be attributed to a source device, and
then give it to
so that
could arrange to have it put in relativity? It sounds like, from his email, that he has now
done that for "multiple devices" and needs to figure out a way to get them to
because
is working remotely?
Since I think
just sends them to the POC at Relativity, could we skip the middle step and just have FBI send to
Relativity directly?
From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:34 PM
To:
(USANYS)
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
)
Subject: FW: Epstein search warrant documents
Guys, to keep you updated on this, see below. One huge frustration on this case is that while we've been asked to pursue
various evidence and interviews we don't expect to yield useful evidence, there is a *huge* trove of evidence that the FBI
gathered nine months ago, that may very well contain important information, that we still haven't gotten a single
functional production from. And it doesn't seem to be a significant priority above the line level either at the FBI or our
office. Ultimately, after months and months of attempts to get this, the end result is that the FBI isn't going to process
any of it after all - they're just going to dump the raw materials on us and we'll need to process it into loadable files
ourselves, and get it up on Relativity, which will likely take additional months. I expect that we'll likely come back to you
in June for permission to request significant funds for a vendor to do this correctly.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:25
To:
is
Cc:
is
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Respectfully, I think there are some miscommunications here - all we have asked is to receive the materials in a format
such that we can view them using a system we have access to. We're not able to get web-enabled access through any FBI
tool, so we asked for the materials to be transferred in a loadable format so we could put them on Relativity, which both
we and the agents can access. We're required to have the files in a format that we can produce them to defense counsel.
I've done that in many other cases and it hasn't previously been an issue. My understanding from
is that the best
way to do it now is just for us (the U.S. Attorney's Office) to get the original files, which our vendor will process-by which
I just mean converting into file formats that are loadable onto Relativity. It doesn't really have anything to do with the
taint review-we have to have access to the docs in our systems for discovery purposes.
And we were happy to get the materials as they were processed, but when we received the 1.1 million documents earlier
this year, they were in a format that wasn't usable for the reasons described in the email I sent on March 9. Again, I
EFTA00027445

=== Page 3 ===
understand from
that the best way forward is to just get copies of the materials in their original formats, which I
understand will be segregated and designated by device. That should work for us! I was just trying to understand the
approach, as well as the timeline.
thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 13:03
To:
is
Cc:
is
is
is
Subject: Re: Epstein search warrant documents
Just to be clear. The US Attorney's Office (or it's contractors) are not "processing" anything. You are taking files
that I will be extracting from processed evidence and putting them into an E-Discovery tool (Relativity) to do a
taint review.
Relativity is NOT a forensic tool. It is incapable of dealing with many things that are found forensically on a
computer like free space, slack space, and system files to name a few. When we started this, and you insisted
you do the taint review in Relativity, I warned you that it was adding months worth of work on top of what was
already done, and that Relativity was incapable of viewing everything. You insisted we do it this way. So now
and I have come up with a way to fit this round peg into this square hole. We will get it done.
Sorry it has taken so long, but we are talking about terabytes worth of data over multiple forms of digital
evidence. Phones, tablets, loose media, cameras, DVRs, servers, laptops, and desktop computers. We have
gotten past encryption on multiple devices. When we review devices on such large cases, we usually do it piece
by piece as things are processed, I was unaware that you didn't want to review as things were processed, that
you wanted to do it "all at once", so that added to the delay. Sorry for that. Just a differentiation of
methodology I suppose.
and I feel confident that the method we have come up with will be more consistent and preserve the
attribution of files to devices and links of e-mails to attachments that the load file generation that I did a while
back was lacking.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:33 AM
To:
is
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Okay, so just to check, you both think that there is not a need to do a test run? You're both comfortable with just basically
sending us copies of everything? I don't totally understand why we couldn't have done that eight months ago, but
EFTA00027446

=== Page 4 ===
regardless of the passage of time, I want to make sure we understand so we can report to our supervisors. I assume that
means that we (at the U.S. Attorney's Office and through contractors) will therefore need to do all the processing
ourselves, correct? And thanks again to you both.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:30
To:
is
Cc:
is
)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Like
said in his earlier email. It will be the raw data and it will be marked so it is easier to attribute it to a
particular device. Problem now is how to get the data to
since he is teleworking.
cell
desk
On May 12, 2020 11:15 AM,
)"
wrote:
I have no doubt you do, but can you please tell us what that plan is? Thanks!
From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:11
To:
is
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I will use the spreadsheet, no problem.
and I ironed out all the details. We've got a good plan moving
forward that will meet your needs.
cell
desk
On May 12, 2020 10:34 AM,
)"
wrote:
it would be very helpful for us if you could please use the attached spreadsheet in transmitting that info so we
make sure we get all the info we need. I think you had previously sent us a list of certain information that unfortunately
wasn't helpful for us, so we want to make sure we're all on the same page.
In terms of data transfer,
are you just sending a literal copy of all the raw data, and we'll process and upload it on
our end? I ask to make sure we don't lose any searchability - when FBI sent versions before, it had already been
processed. I think what we talked about on the phone a month ago was getting, for example, data from one device to
make sure it transfers correctly, before sending over literally everything - is that still the plan?
thanks,
EFTA00027447

=== Page 5 ===
From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:27
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Hello
Me and
just finished our phone call regarding the data.
will put together a list of the all of the data and
where the data was collected. I will work to send some hard drives to
so he can begin to copy the data and send
it to us. I will need to figure out a way to get the data off of the hard drives.
Please let us know if there are any questions.
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 2:15 PM
To:
>;
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
>;
is
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Okay thanks - please do let us know if at any point that changes, otherwise we'll look forward to being able to review the
returns in early June. Thanks again.
From:
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2020 14:14
To:
(USANYS)
is
>;
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
is
i
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
There has been talk of us returning to normal soon, so I don't think it will effect the timeline I initially gave you.
If it does, I'll let you know.
cell
desk
On May 8, 2020 1:58 PM,
)"
wrote:
Understood, thanks- it will be great to get that list on Thursday. As a refresh, the info we are looking for is in the
attached spreadsheet template.
EFTA00027448

=== Page 6 ===
On the returns themselves, do the changes you mentioned mean that the estimate of a month from now for complete
transmission of the search warrant returns is no longer likely? If so could you please let us know what the current
estimate would be, so we can factor that in? Thanks very much.
From:
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2020 13:50
To:
(USANYS)
is
>;
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
>;
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Sorry for the delay, they reduced us to 1 day a week, so things have been stretched out by a factor of 5. I will be
back in the office on Thursday and will be able to get you the list then as I have to access some of our systems to
do so.
Also,
, please reach out to me at one of the numbers below so we can brain storm. Thanks.
cell
desk
On May 8, 2020 12:10 PM,
)"
wrote:
Following up on the below, I think you had said you expected to be able to get us a list of the devices seized from the
search warrants at Epstein's residences in New York and the USVI, as well as from his person upon arrest, in about a
month (during our conference call a month ago) - so wanted to check if we can still expect that very soon? We're waiting
on that list to be able to do an updated search warrant on all of those devices. Please let us know the current timeline -
and also the current timeline on producing the results from those August and September searches? I think you and
were going to coordinate on that, and you had mentioned you expected we'd have it a couple months from our call, which
would be about a month from now. Wanted to make sure we're still on track.
thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 15:27
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Ok let's plan on 11am tomorrow morning, I am trying to get an FBI line with a larger capacity but I won't know until
tomorrow am. I will push it out when confirmed.
Thanks
EFTA00027449

=== Page 7 ===
From:
[mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 3:15 PM
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
i
>;
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Yes, I can do anytime tomorrow, and
Rozier can also join anytime tomorrow. So whenever is good on your end.
Also, we can host a conference call, but only up to six lines at a time - so if FBI has larger capacity than that let us know,
otherwise I'd propose we do:
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 14:13
To:
(USANYS)
is
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
)
>;
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
,
Are you available tomorrow for a conference call to discuss this issue?
On Apr 7, 2020 1:55 PM,
)"
wrote:
Following up on this from a month ago - I know we're living in a different world than what existed four weeks ago, but are
you at all able to assist while working remotely? This has been pending for almost two months and we still don't have a
very basic list of each device or item that was seized and searched, or for which of those we've received materials. We're
happy to have a call if that would be useful, but as a first step the most basic thing we're looking for is the info in the
template spreadsheet we sent earlier (that's also attached).
thanks,
EFTA00027450

=== Page 8 ===
From:
)
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2020 12:00
To:
>;
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Unfortunately I don't think this is very helpful to us. Did you take a look at the example spreadsheet I sent on 2/24? The
excel file you sent has descriptions that don't match up to the items listed in the search warrant returns (that we sent on
2/23), and we don't have the 1B or CART numbers to be able to cross-reference. We also can't tell what you mean by
"loose media" without a specific comparison to what was seized, we don't know which items you're referring to as
"Windows machines," and we can't tell whether the entirety of any particular item has been transferred, or just partial.
For example, it looks like we have gotten very, very few image files, which is surprising.
We have also encountered some very significant problems in trying to review the more than 1 million documents we
recently received:
-
The data we've received has no way to put any emails and attachments together. So if an email says, "see the
attached flight records," for example, we have no way of linking that up with the records themselves. Not only is
that a big problem for us in review, it's going to be a huge problem for producing the documents to defense
counsel.
-
The load file has no link to the native file, so when we load the data to the database, there's no way to have the
native files show up in the database. Because many of the files are too large to open in the viewer, it effectively
means that there are many files that are completely invisible to us.
-
Related, the control numbers in the load file don't match up to the native files. So we have two sets of numbers
and no way to match up anything-that is, even if we were to try to go hunt down every individual large file in the
native files, it would be impossible.
So the data that we most recently got, we need to get in a form that addresses those issues, and we likely will need to get
a similar reproduction of the data we received a couple months ago. Otherwise we're sifting through more than a million
documents without much rhyme or reason.
I've re-attached the spreadsheet we sent last week - I think that's a good place to start in terms of our necessary record-
keeping, and we need that info at the very least, as well as anything else you think would be useful. Also attaching the SW
returns for reference. And again, we're happy to meet up anytime and hash all this out in person if that's useful.
thanks,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 16:36
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
EFTA00027451

=== Page 9 ===
Here is a listing of what I have already handed over in load files to the US Attorney's Office for taint review. Some points of
clarification: There were 9 IDE hard drives found in the Manhattan apartment, they turned out to be 3 copies of 3 drives
(9 drives in total) from a July 2007 search on one of his properties. I only processed 3 (as they were all copies). All the
loose media from the NY apartment is included. All the Windows machines from the NY apartment are included. Only 2
Macs from NY and 1 from the Island are included.
I will have to more closely coordinate with whoever is loading up Relativity with the remaining Macs as the tool
they have to be processed with does not easily re-name the load files.
Spreadsheet is attached.
(office)
(cell)
From:
)
[mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 12:25 PM
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
i
V.
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I could do Thursday morning, but I think it would be helpful for us to get the accounting in advance of the meeting so we
can figure out in advance what (if any) additional steps we need - is that possible?
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 09:59
To:
(USANYS)
is
)
is
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
i
)
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Can we do Thursday morning? My network should be back by then and I can give you a good accounting.
cell
desk
On Mar 2, 2020 11:15 AM,
)"
wrote:
Doing the weekly check in on this - is there a time this week when everyone can meet on this?
thanks,
EFTA00027452

=== Page 10 ===
From:
)
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 17:38
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Totally understand about the network issues-we can relate. I do still think it will be helpful to all sit down together to
have an in-person discussion, to make sure everybody is on the same page. Are folks available for that next week? And
what I think would be most helpful to facilitate that would be a spreadsheet of each separate device referenced in the two
search warrant returns, with columns for whether we've dumped the contents, whether they've been reviewed and/or
transferred, what portions were transferred, etc.
Something roughly like the attached, with any other categories you think would be useful - and the info on the attached is
mostly hypothetical, obviously, just as examples. That will help us fully understand what's been reviewed, transferred,
and received so far, and what remains.
(Also just on the pictures, we do want copies of those as well, please including from the discs and the devices - I think FBI
was going to do an initial screen to make sure no CP, and since I think the answer was no, we'll need to get those to be
able to review them as well.)
many thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 09:24
To:
(USANYS)
is
>;
i
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
,
Sorry for the delayed response. They are tearing out our old network and giving us a new one, they mandated we
delete old stuff (about 400 TB worth). Now that they are working on replacing the network, we can do only local
work. I should be able to give you an accounting of what is what. I can say, off the top of my head, that all
windows based items from the NY search have been handed over as well as all loose media. The CDs from NY
only contained pictures, no documents. There are still some Apple items from NY that need to be produced. As
far as the Island stuff goes, the 1st item on your spreadsheet, the "kitchen" mac has been produced. Still working
on the rest.
cell
desk
On Feb 23, 2020 12:21 AM,
)"
wrote:
Team,
EFTA00027453

=== Page 11 ===
Following up on the below from last weekend, I'm still not sure how we're addressing this so I thought it would make
sense for us to all schedule a (hopefully relatively brief) meeting to all get on the same page? We didn't hear back on
which files had previously been provided, but our tech folks did their best to differentiate, and we got access to the
materials yesterday and its well over a million documents, and we don't have any idea what we're looking at - i.e., which
devices the materials came from, whether it's full or partial results, how many more devices we have coming, etc.
Based on the attached search warrant returns, it looks like from the New York mansion (the PDF) there are approximately
40 devices that would have storage (computers, hard drives, thumb drives, etc.) and that's not even counting at least 60+
CDs. And then from the Virgin Islands (the Excel spreadsheet), at least more than 25 devices, including multiple servers /
server racks.
So we gotta know what we've already received, what remains, anticipated schedule, etc, and I know it's a lot of moving
pieces on all sides so wanted to loop in everybody at once. The case team will be in California this coming week from
Tuesday through Friday, but then I think generally around the first week of March, which will hopefully be plenty of time
to schedule a productive meeting.
thanks all,
From:
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 16:30
To:
is
Cc:
is
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I'm not sure who's the exact right person to ask this, so wanted to get everybody on one email chain about it - I have the
hard drive that
dropped off that has new Epstein search warrant materials, but it looks like there are also old
materials (that I think we had previously received and uploaded??) on the hard drive, and so I'm not sure what's new.
Just generally, and
and I talked about this last week too, but it's basically impossible for us to keep track of what
we're getting, and what has been completed, without some kind of identification or labeling system, along with a list of
which devices have been extracted and downloaded.
So for example on the hard drive currently, there are 38 folders labeled "loadFiles" through "37loadFiles" with a modified
date of 11/14/19, which I think we may have already previously received - but I'm not sure, because we haven't gotten
any info on which folders match up to which devices, etc. And then there's another folder titled "NYC024362" that has a
modified date of 1/27/20, so I think that may be the materials we hadn't previously received? That folder by itself has
more than 600,000 items.
I don't want to give
anything that we've already previously received and uploaded, and I can't tell from the folder or
file names whether everything on the drive is new, or whether just additional materials were saved onto it in addition to
what we already have.
are you able to give us some guidance on this? Ultimately what we really need is a
spreadsheet of every device, whether it's been dumped (or partially dumped), and then identifying that same info -
which device, and what materials from it - are being given to us with each data transfer. Otherwise I think
organizationally and for review purposes it will be a total disaster for us.
We're happy to have a meeting on this if that's helpful - and thanks everybody for the assistance.
EFTA00027454

=== Page 12 ===
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00027455


c1: EFTA00028291
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028291.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: child exploitation/sex crimes case updates
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:33:02 +0000
Attachments: Child_Exploitation_Porn_Update_Report_II_(005).pdf
Hi
I've reviewed the attached with all the listed AUSAs, and have several updates that I've marked on a paper copy. Can I
bring you a copy to be updated in LIONS?
Thanks,
EFTA00028291


c1: EFTA00028536
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028536.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject:
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 16:54:53 +0000
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbs17.com%2Fwp-
content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F29%2F2019%2F07%2FAP19191591247502.jpg%3Fw%3D900&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2
Fwww.cbs17.com%2Fnews%2Fon-caribbean-island-whispers-suspicion-about
epstein%2F&docid=Yv6Fls3AkF679M&tbnid=e7BGUFloaqQEbM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiQj-yi3vPjAhWPmOAKHc6-
DgAQMwhYKBAwEA.i&w=900&h=937&bih=830&biw=1444&q=little%20saint%20james%20island&ved=0ahUKEwiQj-
yi3vPjAhWPmOAKHc6-DgAQMwhYKBAwEA&iact=mrc&uact=8
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00028536


c1: EFTA00029589
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029589.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
)"
Subject: GM Defense letter re CC identities and statements
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 23:17:21 +0000
Attachments: 2021-08-30_GM_defense_letter_re_co-conspirator_identities_and_statements.pdf
Circulating Jeff Pagliuca's letter filed earlier this evening.
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
EFTA00029589


c1: EFTA00028779
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028779.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
,
)"
Subject: FW: Urgent. I have a new alleged victim of E I have a new client who was a victim of
Epstein. She is willing to fly to New York for the victim meeting on Oct. 23. May I call you
at 5:45 P.M. to discuss
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:23:54 +0000
Inline-Images: image003.jpg; image004.png; image005.jpg; image006.png
I'm fine with a conference call instead of Skype if that's what
wants, but let me know if you guys disagree.
For
I won't be able to make it to a noon meeting. I need to run back to 500 Pearl at 11am and handle a proffer until
our
interview at 1.
is there any way you could please handle meeting with
at noon? If not, l'll see if
Gloria can meet in the morning before the FBI thing.
From: Gloria Allred
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 7:49 PM
To:
)
is
Cc:
V.
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Urgent. I have a new alleged victim of E I have a new client who was a victim of Epstein. She is willing to fly to
New York for the victim meeting on Oct. 23. May I call you at 5:45 P.M. to discuss ?
I have 2 questions. First, would it be o.k. with all of you if we did the call with
tomorrow at 4P.M. e.s.t as a
conference call rather than as a Skype call? We will be in at least 4 different locations and I think it will be easier if we did
it that way. If so, please send us the number to dial. Daniel from my CO counsel Marianne Wang's office will also be
joining us on the call. Also ,re
my client who is flying in for victim services will be happy to speak with you, but I
have a very tight schedule on Wednesday, because I need to be on a 1 or at the latest 2 P.M. train to D.C. that day. Could
we have the meeting from noon to 1P.M.? My office is only one block away from the FBI meeting.
Gloria Allred
Allred, Maroko & Goldberg
6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90048
www.amglaw.com
www.gloriaallred.com
ALLRED. MAROKO & GOLDBERO
2019
Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell
PREEMINENT
AV
Peer Rated for Highest Level
of Professional Excellence
2019
From:
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 6:40 AM
To: Gloria Allred
is
Cc:
is
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Urgent. I have a new alleged victim of E I have a new client who was a victim of Epstein. She is willing to fly to
New York for the victim meeting on Oct. 23. May I call you at 5:45 P.M. to discuss ?
EFTA00028779

=== Page 2 ===
Gloria,
We will make ourselves available to meet with your new client on 10/23. Because the victim meeting is being run by the
FBI, their victim services folks are handling travel logistics. I'm cc'ing
who should be able to hopefully help
coordinate travel. Would you please provide
with your new client's name as it appears on her ID, date of birth,
email address, and phone number?
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Gloria Allred
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 5:02 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Urgent. I have a new alleged victim of E I have a new client who was a victim of Epstein. She is willing to fly to
New York for the victim meeting on Oct. 23. May I call you at 5:45 P.M. to discuss ?
Gloria Allred
Allred, Maroko & Goldberg
6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90048
www.amglaw.com
www.gloriaallred.com
ALLRED. MAROKO & GOLDBERG
2019
Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell
PREEMINENT
AV
Peer Rated for Highest Level
of Professional Excellence
2019
This message is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the
addressee you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
ABOVE AT
Thank you.
This message is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the
addressee you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
EFTA00028780

=== Page 3 ===
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
ABOVE AT
Thank you.
EFTA00028781


c1: EFTA00029498
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029498.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)
[Contractor]"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
i
(USANYS)"
Bcc:
Subject: RE: Epstein and SDNY in 2016
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 21:01:14 +0000
Embedded: RE:_Epstein_and_SDNY_in_2016.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: Epstein and SDNY in 2016
Message-Id:
<DM3P110MB0265896E42DE8B35E4AF2EF589070@DM3P110MB0265.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.CO
M>
To
EFTA00029498


c1: EFTA00028209
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028209.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: joint letter
Date: Sun,
Nov 2021 20:53:28 +0000
Attachments: 2021-11-08_joint_letter_regarding_juror_questionnaires.v2.docx
The highlighted ones are the ones we've agreed to withdraw our objections for. If you agree, let me know and l'll ask
to revise. Thanks.
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 3:00 PM
To:
>;
Subject: RE: joint letter
Can we all dial into the call on Daubert and then talk about that?
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 2:57 PM
To:
is
Subject: RE: joint letter
I'm actually thinking maybe we should all take a look at the very short list in category 4, to make sure we're fine with it.
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 2:54 PM
To:
is
Subject: RE: joint letter
Team,
Do you want me to send this to the defense as it is, or are there parts we want to spot check, or are there any other steps
you want me to take before we send out?
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 2:40 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: joint letter
Hey
- the draft letter is attached, with all four categories filled in with the respective juror numbers. I'm also
attaching the Excel sheet, containing defense and government objections, that contains all four lists in four different
sheets. This Excel sheet is also saved on the shared in the jury selection folder.
If anything needs to be edited, l'll be around for a bit longer today but I'm unavailable later this afternoon/evening, after
3:30pm today.
have kindly offered to handle any edits tonight when I'm offline,
so I can loop them in if necessary.
Thanks so much!
EFTA00028209

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 2:06 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: joint letter
Hi
Thanks so much for all you're doing today, really appreciate it. Attached is a draft of the joint letter for today with the four
categories. Could you please fill those in after you've had a chance to enter all the data from the defense? I'm fine with
charts in each of the four questions (essentially just one row of cells with juror numbers). Also fine with bullet points.
Whichever is easiest.
Whenever you're at point when you have a sense of the timeline for this, that would be helpful to know - we'll need to
send this to the defense with ample time to review for accuracy, so hoping to do that later this afternoon.
Thanks!
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00028210


c1: EFTA00028668
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028668.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Wilson, Alexander (USANYS) 3"
To:
)"
Subject: New Time Proposed: Meet re: Epstein
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:56:59 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00028668


c1: EFTA00028351
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028351.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: epstein
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 19:36:09 +0000
Importance: Normal
perfect thx
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 13:44
To:
is
Subject: RE: epstein
I created a transcripts folder on the shared, FYI, and these are saved there.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 1:23 PM
To: Goretti Moya <gmoya@sdreporters.com>;
is
)
Subject: RE: epstein
Received, thank you.
From: Goretti Moya <gmoya@sdreporters.com>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 5:13 PM
To:
is
)
>;
)
Subject: epstein
Please e-mail when youg et this
EFTA00028351


c1: EFTA00027584
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027584.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Stuart Kaplan
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(NY) (FBI)"
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:18:29 +0000
Inline-Images: image003.png
Ms.
:
As I understand now your office has been advised that I have been formerly retained by Retired FBI Special Agent
in connection with her being subpoenaed
to testify in United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell case pending in the SDNY.
Ms.
has conveyed some concerns about her inability to properly prepare for her testimony whether for the
prosecution or defense given that she has not been given a copy of the 1A notes that were originally prepared in
preparation to the FD-302 written that she may be called to testify about. (I will be able to elaborate via tel/cal with you).
Additionally, my client was interviewed by Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) just prior to her retirement. This
interview was given under oath and in connection with her recollection of events of the Jeffrey Espstein investigation.
(I can of course elaborate further via tel/cal with you.)
Please feel free to reach out to me at your earliest convenience to discuss further.
In the interim, moving forward all direct or indirect contact with Ms.
should be coordinated through my
office.
Thank you.
Stuart N. Kaplan, Esq.
Managing Partner
LAW OFFICES
STUART N. KAPLAN, P.A.
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
3399 PGA Blvd. Ste 150 I Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
561/296-7900 Tele. I 561/296-7919 Fax
www.stuartnkaplanpa.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail message from The Law Office of Stuart N. Kaplan, P.A., is intended only for the individual or entity to
which it is addressed. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by
accident, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail and all copies of it.
EFTA00027584


c1: EFTA00028730
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028730.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Accepted: Epstein Meeting (Please hold the time)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 18:55:26 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00028730


c1: EFTA00028097
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028097.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: BOBBI C STERNHEIM <bcsternheim@mac.com>
To:
Cc:
Christian Everdell
,
<CEverdell@CohenGresser.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509 Legal Mail
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 08:48:57 +0000
Inline-Images: now_4_packages_!!_ALL_SAY_AVAILABLE_FOR_PICK_UP_l!_1_new_arived_TODA
Y.png
Good morning-
According to USPS tracking, the following 4 boxes of legal mail are awaiting pick up.
Please notify me when these specific items have been obtained by MDC and given to Ms. Maxwell.
Thank you.
Bobbi
EFTA00028097

=== Page 2 ===
Tracking Number: EJ699436413US
Scheduled Delivery by
Status
SATURDAY
Available for Pickup
9
by
October 12, 2021 at 9:07 am
OCTOBER
BROOKLYN, NY 11232
2021 1
6:00pm 1
Get Updates
Available for Pickup
Tracking Number: EJ699436427US
Scheduled Delivery by
Status
THURSDAY
Available for Pickup
28
by
October 28, 2021 at 10:59 am
OCTOBER
BROOKLYN, NY 11232
2021 1
6:00pm
Get Updates
Available for Pickup
See More
Tracking Number: EJ699436400US
Scheduled Delivery by
Status
SATURDAY
Available for Pickup
16
by
October 19, 2021 at 6:51 am
OCTOBER
BROOKLYN, NY 11232
2021 1
6:00pm
Get Updates
Available for Pickup
See More
Tracking Number: EJ699436435US
Scheduled Delivery by
Status
THURSDAY
Available for Pickup
14
by
October 15, 2021 at 7:55 am
OCTOBER
BROOKLYN, NY 11232
2021
i
6:00pm
Get Updates
EFTA00028098

=== Page 3 ===
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
225 Broadway, Suite 715
New York, NY 10007
Main: 212-243-1100
Cell: 917-912-9698
Fax:
888-587-4737
bcsternheim@mac.com
This message and any attached documents contain information from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
that may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then
delete this message. Thank you.
EFTA00028099


c1: EFTA00029170
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029170.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Maxwell/Epstein
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 20:19:15 +0000
Thanks. Why don't we set up a call for next week.
On May 19, 2020, at 3:56 PM,
wrote:
- as an FYI, we expect to have the Maxwell memo to you by the end of the week. Because the team was able to
get in the
interview last week, they incorporated that rather than address the issues seriatim. They're in the
process of turning our edits to the combined memo. So it will probably make sense to set a time to talk through the
issues next week.
Also, we wanted to update you that the team was contacted by trustees' counsel recently, who conveyed that the estate
is beginning to take steps to sell illiquid assets, including NY and other properties, in order to meet its July 15 tax
deadline. The estate apparently tried to get the IRS to hold off on the tax enforcement until it settles a number of
contingent liabilities, but the IRS will not agree. The attorneys said they would be willing to discuss some way to
maintain our forfeiture interest in a relevant amount. Consistent with prior directions, the team did not respond /
engage on the issue, but we wanted to update you on this. We can add it to the list of items to discuss next week.
EFTA00029170


c1: EFTA00027642
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027642.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE:
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 15:16:19 +0000
Attachments: 2021-10-01
pdf
Hey
I'm attaching the scanned proffer (it's saved in her Witnesses & Cooperators folder, located here:
Is there another location you'd like it saved as well? Thanks!
From:
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 10:12 AM
To:
Subject:
Hi
I'm having a hard time locating the most recent scan of the
proffer agreement - it should be updated as of 9/21.
I'm probably just looking in the wrong place. Could you please send me the scan? If it's not on the shared, the original
should be in the para file.
Thanks!
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00027642


c1: EFTA00027134
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027134.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:13-cr-00051-C-BL Document 1 Filed 08/28/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1
CLERK 73 DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DIST. OF TX
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
2013 AUG 28 PM 3: 05
ABILENE DIVISION
DEPUTY CLERK Jw
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
$
§
V.
§ No. 1- 13CR- 051-C
§
JAMES MCKINNON
§
INFORMATION
The United States Attorney Charges:
Count One
Misprision of a Felony
(18 U.S.C. $ 4)
Beginning on or about August 22, 2012, and continuing to on or about August 23,
2012, in the Abilene Division of the Northern District of Texas, in a matter within the
jurisdiction of an agency of the United States, the United States Department of Justice,
defendant James McKinnon (McKinnon), being a public official, that is, a Correctional
Officer, assigned to the Flight Line Unit in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at the Big
Spring Correctional Center (BSCC), a correctional facility under contract with the GEO
Group, Inc., under the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States, the United States
Department of Justice, did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully, having knowledge of
the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, to wit, that
Correctional Officers at the Big Spring Correction Facility made, and cause to be made,
false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations to the Department of
Information (James McKinnon) - Page 1
EFTA00027134

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:13-cr-00051-C-BL Document 1 Filed 08/28/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2
Justice as to material facts, by signing and submitting to the Department of Justice, as
required by law, the "GEO FLIGHTLINE 12 HOUR SHIFT, 30 MINUTE ROUNDS,
Forms, for the time period 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., by placing their initials on the Forms
representing the Forms to be true and correct and that the 30 MINUTE ROUNDS
reflected therein had been performed, when in truth and in fact, as McKinnon then and
there well knew, the Forms were not true and correct and were false in that the
Correctional Officers had not conducted the 30 MINUTE ROUNDS, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1001, False Statements, a felony, did conceal the same, and did not as soon as
possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military
authority under the United States.
A violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 4.
SARAH R. SALDANA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
PAULINA all Jacks
Assistant United States Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 10516700
1205 Texas Avenue, Suite 700
Lubbock, Texas 79401
Telephone: 806.472.7351
Facsimile: 806.472.7394
Email:
paulina.jacobo@usdoj.gov
Information (James McKinnon) - Page 2
EFTA00027135


c1: EFTA00029606
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029606.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: White Collar Law360 <news@law360.com>
To:
Subject: Ex-SFO Boss Says Collusion Claims Were 'Drunken Boasts'
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 07:34:39 +0000
Law3
60
WHITE COLLAR
White
Wednesday, July 14, 2021
Follow Law360
TOP NEWS
Law360 Pulse
Ex-SFO Boss Says Collusion Claims Were 'Drunken Boasts'
A former SFO chief defended his decision not to investigate "absurd"
Law360 Rising Stars 2021
accusations that the agency fed insider information to help a Dechert attorney
win work on high-profile fraud cases, testifying Tuesday that these were
"probably the boasts of a man in drink."
Read full article
Exclusive
NFL Concussion Deal Masters Say Atty Fabricated Evidence
A Florida attorney accused of swindling NFL players out of their life savings
also "engaged in a wide-ranging, long-standing, and brazen pattern and
practice of manufacturing evidence" for concussion settlement payout claims,
the settlement's special masters found in a recent decision to disqualify the
lawyer and his former firm.
LAW FIRMS
Motion attached Read full article
Blackstone Chambers
Manafort Banker Convicted Of Bribery
Boyden Gray & Associates
BrownGreer PLC
Former Federal Savings Bank CEO Stephen Calk on Tuesday was convicted
of financial institution bribery and conspiracy, over allegations that the banker
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
sought to exchange $16 million in loans to Paul Manafort for his help in getting
Chalmers & Adams
a job in the administration of former President Donald Trump.
Chartash Law
Read full article
Cloth Fair Chambers
Clyde & Co
FCC Tightens Rules To Eradicate Contraband Phones In Jails
Cooley LLP
To crack down on extortion plots perpetrated from inside prisons and jails, the
Cotsirilos Tighe
Federal Communications Commission is requiring mobile providers to shut
down contraband cellphones in correctional facilities.
Cozen O'Connor
Order attached Read full article
Davis Polk
Dechert
Q&A
Dickinson Wright
Ex-Grassley Atty Says Trust Is Key To Whistleblower Venture
Dornan Troia
Jason Foster, ex-chief investigative counsel to former Senate Judiciary
Duane Morris LLP
Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-lowa, speaks to Law360 about the
mission behind his new nonprofit Empower Oversight, an organization that will
Eckert Seamans
assist whistleblowers in government and corporate America.
Erskine Chambers
Read full article
Essex Court Chambers
Eversheds Sutherland
Feds Want 18 Mos. For Man Who Threatened Flynn Judge
Federal prosecutors have recommended 18 months in prison for a man who
Hogan Lovells
threatened to assault and murder the D.C. federal judge overseeing the
Johnson & Mock
politically charged criminal case of ex-Trump national security adviser Michael
Jones Day
Flynn.
Kramer Levin
2 documents attached
Read full article
Loeb & Loeb
EFTA00029606

=== Page 2 ===
COMPLIANCE
Martin G. Weinberg Attorney at
Law
Rail Execs Plead Guilty In Worker Safety Case After Explosion
Offit Kurman
The owners of a rail car cleaning service that employed two workers killed in a
One Essex Court
2015 explosion pled guilty Monday to charges related to the deaths, which
Price Benowitz
prosecutors said came after a history of safety violations.
Reed Smith
Read full article
Robbins Russell
SECURITIES
Slaughter and May
Stoel Rives
7th Circ. Again Upholds First Market Spoofing Conviction
Sullivan & Cromwell
The Seventh Circuit upheld the conviction and sentence for the first trader ever
found guilty of spoofing the commodities market for a second time Monday,
Three Raymond Buildings
rejecting his argument that conflicted counsel and newly acquired evidence
Winston & Strawn
were enough to receive a new trial.
COMPANIES
Opinion attached Read full article
Alstom SA
SEC Seeks $6.4M From Duo In Cannabis Investment Scheme
American Bar Association
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission wants a self-styled movie
American Civil Liberties Union
producer and his business partner to pay nearly $6.4 million for allegedly
Apple Inc.
defrauding investors out of $4.85 million in a would-be recreational cannabis
Bank of America Corp.
business.
Brooklyn Law School
Motion attached Read full article
CME Group Inc.
INSURANCE
CTIA
Facebook Inc.
Ga. Insurance Commissioner Embezzled $2M, Jury Told
Federal National Mortgage
Georgia's suspended insurance commissioner Jim C. Beck duped friends and
Association
family into helping him embezzle more than $2 million from the state-regulated
insurance association he used to run, a federal jury heard during trial openings
Google LLC
Tuesday.
Legal Services NYC
Indictment attached Read full article
Linkedln Corp.
Michelin Group
Insurer Hits Banks With Suit Over $19M Wire Fraud
NFL Enterprises LLC
An insurer asked a federal judge in Texas to order banks including Bank of
Old Republic International Corp.
America and other institutions to freeze and return nearly $20 million it said it
Platinum Partners LP
was tricked into wiring.
Complaint attached Read full article
Spotify Technology SA
The Coca-Cola Co.
TAX
Twitter Inc.
Vertex Inc.
Feds Fight Architect's Bid To Split Tribal Bribery Case
Federal prosecutors said Monday that tax charges against a former
Washington Post Co.
Massachusetts tribal chair should be tried at the same time as claims he
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
accepted bribes from an architect in connection with a casino project.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
2 documents attached I Read full article
Federal Communications
2nd Circ. Affirms $4.3M FBAR Penalty, Says Old Reg Invalid
Commission
The U.S. government can collect a $4.3 million foreign bank account reporting
Federal Judicial Center
penalty from a man's estate after a split Second Circuit said Tuesday that a
Internal Revenue Service
1980s-era regulation capping the penalty was supplanted by a statutory
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe
amendment.
Occupational Safety and Health
Opinion attached
Read full article
Administration
Serious Fraud Office
PEOPLE
U.S. Army
Cooley Adds Experienced NY Prosecutor To Litigation Group
U.S. Attorney's Office
A former New York federal prosecutor who led the prosecutions of many high-
U.S. Attorney's Office for the
profile figures, including former attorney Michael Cohen and financier Jeffrey
District of Massachusetts
EFTA00029607

=== Page 3 ===
Epstein, has joined Cooley LLP's growing global litigation group, the firm
U.S. Attorney's Office for the
announced Tuesday.
Northern District of Georgia
Read full article
U.S. Attorney's Office for the
EXPERT ANALYSIS
Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Digging Into FCA Stats: In-House Litigation Budget Insights
Southern District of New York
A deep dive into data about False Claims Act cases, beyond the U.S.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Department of Justice's annual statistics, reveals trends that could affect in-
Second Circuit
house counsel budgeting for FCA litigation and enable better assessment of
U.S. Department of Justice
what life as an FCA defendant may look like, says Ralph Mayrell at Robbins
Russell.
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Read full article
U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California
Keys To Efficient And Accurate Doc Review For E-Discovery
U.S. District Court for the District
Attorneys involved in e-discovery can review information accurately and cost-
of Columbia
effectively by understanding the data in a document collection and identifying
U.S. District Court for the District
its key pitfalls, drafting comprehensive review guidelines, and preparing ahead,
of Massachusetts
says John Wertelet at Eckert Seamans.
U.S. District Court for the District
Read full article
of Nebraska
U.S. District Court for the
Law360 Pulse
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Court for the
LEGAL INDUSTRY
Northern District of Florida
Duane Morris' McSwain To Trump: Pa. Election A 'Disgrace'
U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia
Duane Morris partner William McSwain, a former Philadelphia federal
prosecutor with his eyes on the Pennsylvania's governor's office, called the
U.S. District Court for the
state's presidential election a "partisan disgrace" in a bid for Donald Trump's
Southern District of New York
backing.
U.S. District Court for the
Read full article
Western District of Texas
U.S. Securities and Exchange
Davis Polk Will Try Out Attys Returning To Office Most Days
Commission
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP will require attorneys to report to the office at least
U.S. Supreme Court
seven out of every 10 business days starting in September, the firm confirmed
to Law360 on Tuesday, making it the latest major law firm to announce plans
for more of its lawyers to be back at the office in the fall.
Read full article
Atty Moves Up The Coke Chain To GC For North America
A longtime Coca-Cola attorney has been promoted to general counsel for
North America, he said in a Linkedln post Monday, the latest change in the
beverage giant's legal department this year.
Read full article
Facebook Hires ACLU Atty For Civil Rights Team
Facebook Inc. has hired an American Civil Liberties Union legislative attorney
to serve as associate general counsel for its civil rights team.
Read full article
Podcast
Pro Say Movie Club: 'Legally Blonde'
Twenty years ago today, sorority queen Elle Woods proved that law school was
for more than just people who were "boring and ugly and serious" as she
conquered Harvard Law in the iconic 2001 comedy "Legally Blonde."
Read full article
JOBS
Search full listings or advertise your job opening
EFTA00029608

=== Page 4 ===
ASSOCIATE - BUSINESS LITIGATION
Elite NYC mid-sized FULL SERVICE law
(HARTFORD, CT)
firm seek WHITE COLLAR PARTNER
McCarter & English, LLP
Schoen Legal Search
Hartford, Connecticut
New York, New York
NYC ELITE FULL SERVICE SMALL FIRM
Mid-Level Litigation Associate
SEEKS PARTNERS
Corr Cronin LLP
Schoen Legal Search
Seattle, Washington
New York, New York
Not sure if your firm subscribes? Ask your librarian
We hope you found this message to be useful.
However, if you'd rather not receive future emails of this sort,
you may unsubscribe here.
Please DO NOT reply to this email. For customer support inquiries, please call +1-646-783-7100 or visit our Contact Us page.
Privacy Policy I Cookie Policy
Law360 I Portfolio Media, Inc. 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10011
EFTA00029609


c1: EFTA00027927
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027927.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
)"
,
)"
i
(USANYS)"
,
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein 19 cr 490
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 18:37:38 +0000
Importance: High
Attachments: Aug_12_letter.pdf
Original Message
From:
On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 12:47 PM
To:
Cc:
;
V
)
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 19 cr 490
Importance: High
Please see attached letter from Judge Richard M. Berman.
(See attached file: Aug 12 letter.pdf)
EFTA00027927


c1: EFTA00028380
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028380.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
(NY) (FBI)"
(NY) (FBI)"
Subject: RE: Epstein Travel
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:47:49 +0000
Importance: Normal
Thanks very much for double-checking - we'll see what happens over the next couple days!
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 14:16
To:
is
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(NY)
(FBI)
Subject: Fwd: Epstein Travel
Begin forwarded message:
From:
"
(NY) (FBI)"
Date: June 27, 2019 at 13:52:15 EDT
To:
(NY) (FBI)"
"
Subject: Epstein Travel
Hey!
I searched Epstein's travel records from 6/1/2019 to 6/27/2019 at noon and attached the record. His last record
shows an OUTBOUND flight on 6/14/2019 to Paris.
Search capabilities only show international travel and are limited if he travels to the islands because it is US
Territory. It is unclear why some OUTBOUND/INFBOUND records show Epstein going to/from the islands
and others don't but it is likely up to how CBP inputs their information.
Hope this helps!
EFTA00028380


c1: EFTA00027471
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027471.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From
To
Subject: FW: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:04:05 +0000
Attachments: U.S._v._Ghislaine_Maxwell_Indictment.pdf, Ghislaine_Maxwell_Indictment_PR.pdf
Inline-Images: image001.png
Awesome work - congrats!
From
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 1:22 PM
Subject: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO
SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
OF JUSTICE QUI PRO ENTER VILLING
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Southern District of New York
STATES
GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Maxwell is Alleged to Have Facilitated, Participated in Acts of Abuse
Additionally Charged With Perjury in Connection With 2016 Depositions
-
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F.
Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI"), and Dermot Shea, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"),
announced that GHISLANE MAXWELL was arrested this morning and charged with enticing a minor to travel
to engage in criminal sexual activity, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity,
conspiracy to commit both of those offenses, and perjury in connection with a sworn deposition. The Indictment
unsealed today alleges that between at least in or about 1994 through 1997, MAXWELL and co-conspirator
Jeffrey Epstein exploited girls as young as 14, including by enticing them to travel and transporting them for the
purpose of engaging in illegal sex acts. As alleged, knowing that Epstein had a preference for young girls,
MAXWELL played a critical role in the grooming and abuse of minor victims that took place in locations
including New York, Florida, and New Mexico. In addition, as alleged, MAXWELL made several false
statements in sworn depositions in 2016. MAXWELL is expected to be presented this afternoon in the in federal
court in New Hampshire. This case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan.
EFTA00027471

=== Page 2 ===
Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: "As alleged, Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated, aided, and
participated in acts of sexual abuse of minors. Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, and then
delivered them into the trap that she and Jeffrey Epstein had set. She pretended to be a woman they could trust.
All the while, she was setting them up to be abused sexually by Epstein and, in some cases, Maxwell herself.
Today, after many years, Ghislaine Maxwell finally stands charged for her role in these crimes."
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: "Preserving the innocence of children is among the
most important responsibilities we carry as adults. Like Epstein, Ms. Maxwell chose to blatantly disregard the
law and her responsibility as an adult, using whatever means she had at her disposal to lure vulnerable youth into
behavior they should never have been exposed to, creating the potential for lasting harm. We know the quest for
justice has been met with great disappointment for the victims, and that reliving these events is traumatic. The
example set by the women involved has been a powerful one. They persevered against the rich and connected,
and they did so without a badge, a gun, or a subpoena - and they stood together. I have no doubt the bravery
exhibited by the women involved here has empowered others to speak up about the crimes of which they've been
subjected."
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said: "The heinous crimes these charges allege are, and always will
be abhorrent for the lasting trauma they inflict on victims. I commend our investigators, and law enforcement
partners, for their continuing commitment to bringing justice to the survivors of sexual assault, everywhere."
If you believe you are a victim of the sexual abuse perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein, please contact
the FBI at 1-800-CALL FBI, and reference this case.
According to the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From at least 1994 through at least 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and participated
in Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Jeffrey Epstein to recruit, groom, and
ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as
young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that their victims were in fact minors. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims,
MAXWELL and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states,
which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.
As alleged, MAXWELL enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways. For example,
MAXWELL attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, taking them to the movies or
taking them on shopping trips, and encouraging their interactions with Epstein. MAXWELL also acclimated
victims to Epstein's conduct simply by being present for victim interactions with Epstein, which put victims at
ease by providing the assurance and comfort of an adult woman who seemingly approved of Epstein's behavior.
Additionally, to make victims feel indebted to Epstein, MAXWELL would encourage victims to accept offers of
financial assistance from Epstein, including offers to pay for travel or educational expenses. MAXWELL also
normalized and facilitated sexual abuse by discussing sexual topics with victims, encouraging them to massage
Epstein, and undressing in front of a victim.
As MAXWELL and Epstein intended, these grooming behaviors left minor victims vulnerable and
susceptible to sexual abuse by Epstein. MAXWELL was then present for certain sexual encounters between
minor victims and Epstein, such as interactions where a minor victim was undressed, and ultimately MAXWELL
was present for sex acts perpetrated by Epstein on minor victims. That abuse included sexualized massages
during which a minor victim was fully or partially nude, as well as group sexualized massages of Epstein
involving a minor victim where MAXWELL was present.
As alleged, minor victims were subjected to sexual abuse that included, among other things, the touching
of a victim's breasts or genitals, placing a sex toy such a vibrator on a victim's genitals, directing a victim to
touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. MAXWELL and
EFTA00027472

=== Page 3 ===
Epstein's victims were groomed or abused at Epstein's residences in New York, Florida, and New Mexico, as
well as MAXWELL's residence in London, England.
Additionally, in 2016, while testifying under oath in a civil proceeding, MAXWELL repeatedly made
false statements, including about certain specific acts and events alleged in the Indictment.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 58, is charged with one count of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal
sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of conspiracy to entice a minor to
travel to engage in illegal sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of
transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, which carries a maximum sentence of
10 years in prison, one count of conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual
activity, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and two counts of perjury, each of which
carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational
purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge.
Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI and the NYPD.
This case is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys
, and
are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
20-138
###
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PRESS OFFICE
AT (212) 637-2600.
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter SDNY website YouTube
[1]
As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein,
constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
EFTA00027473


c1: EFTA00029435
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029435.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Jes Staley
To:
'jeevacation@gmail.com
Sent:
12/31/2010 12:53:26 AM
Subject:
Happy new year. It nice to have u free.
Much to come.
Please know that I am an friend forever. You are very special.
Knowing u, I will toast to the two of us, tomorrow night.
Best
Jes
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00001262
EFTA00029435


c1: EFTA00027307
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027307.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 34
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
- V. -
:
19 Cr. 830 (AT)
:
TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MICHAEL THOMAS'S MOTION TO COMPEL
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Assistant United States Attorneys
- Of Counsel -
EFTA00027307

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
2
I.
The Indictment
2
II.
Pretrial Discovery and the Defendant's Request for Additional Materials
3
A. The Government's Discovery Production
3
B.
Defense Requests for Additional Discovery Materials
4
ARGUMENT
7
I.
Applicable Law
7
A.
Brady & Giglio
7
B.
Rule 16
8
II.
Thomas is Not Entitled to Additional Materials
8
A. The Government Has Satisfied its Discovery and Disclosure Obligations
8
B. The Requested Records Are Not "Material" to Preparing a Defense and Are
Sought for the Impermissible Purpose of Jury Nullification
10
1. Applicable Law
10
2. Discussion
12
C. The Government is Not Required to Collect Materials From Agencies Who
Were Not Part of the Prosecution Team
15
1. Applicable Law
16
2. Discussion
19
D. Any Draft Inspector General Report is Not Subject to Disclosure
21
E.
Thomas Has Not Carried His Burden With Respect to Discovery of Material in
Support of a Selective Prosecution Claim
24
1. Applicable Law
24
2. Discussion
26
CONCLUSION
29
EFTA00027308

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 34
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Amnesty Int 'l USA V. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
27
Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
passim
Color of Change V. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 325 F. Supp. 3d 447
(S.D.N.Y. 2018)
27
Dep't of Interior V. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass 'n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001)
26, 27
Giglio V. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
passim
In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
26
In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008)
15
Kyles V. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)
19
N.L.R.B. V. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975)
26
Nat'l Res. Def. Council V. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 954 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.
2020)
26
Standefer V. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980)
13
United States V. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003)
29, 30, 31
United States V. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996)
passim
United States V. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998)
19, 25
United States V. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)
7
United States V. Barcelo, 628 F. App'x 36 (2d Cir. 2015)
19
United States V. Bass, 536 U.S. 862 (2002)
30, 33
United States V. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207 (2d Cir. 1974)
30, 31
United States V. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
20
United States V. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 1989)
24
United States V. Carr, 424 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2005)
12
United States V. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
20
ii
EFTA00027309

=== Page 4 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 34
United States V. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001)
7,8
United States V. Defreitas, No. 07 Cr. 543 (DLI), 2011 WL 317964, at *10 (E.D.N.Y.
Jan. 31, 2011)
12, 17
United States V. Delacruz, No. 14 Cr. 815 (KBF), 2015 WL 2211943, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
May 12, 2015)
16
United States V. Edwards, 101 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1996)
13
United States V. Fares, 978 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1992)
30, 31, 33
United States V. Fernandez, 231 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2000)
26
United States V. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
20
United States V. Floyd, No. 99 Cr. 0234 (DAB), 1999 WL 476438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
July 7, 1999)
16
United States V. Frank, 8 F. Supp. 2d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
26
United States V. George, 786 F. Supp. 56 (D.D.C. 1992)
15
United States V. Ghailani, 687 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
21
United States V. Gibbons, 602 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1979)
16
United States V. Gonzalez, No. 19 Cr. 123-2 (NRB), 2020 WL 1809293, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020)
10
United States V. LeRoy, 687 F.2d 610 (2d Cir. 1982)
7
United States V. Levin, No. 15 Cr. 101 (KBF), 2016 WL 2990831, at *12 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 25, 2016)
13, 16
United States V. Lewis, 35 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1994)
28
United States V. Lewis, 517 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2008)
32
United States V. Libby, 429 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006)
24
United States V. Manzano, 945 F.3d 616 (2d Cir. 2019)
13, 17
United States V. McGuinness, 764 F. Supp. 888 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
11
United States V. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)
20, 22
United States V. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir. 1983)
30, 33
iii
EFTA00027310

=== Page 5 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 5 of 34
United States V. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200 (2d Cir. 1995)
8
United States V. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005)
21
United States V. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
10
United States V. Persico, 645 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2011)
8
United States V. Reese, 933 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
13, 16
United States V. Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
11, 12
United States V. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009)
20
United States V. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1984)
17
United States V. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1972)
15
United States V. Ruggiero, 472 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1973)
7
United States V. Sanders, 17 F. Supp. 2d 141 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)
29
United States V. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985)
15
United States V. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
21
United States V. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175 (2d Cir. 1993)
9, 12
United States V. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997)
12
United States V. Underwood, No. 04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 2005 WL 927012, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2005)
10
United States V. Upton, 856 F. Supp. 727 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)
21
United States V. Volpe, 42 F. Supp. 2d 204 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)
24
United States V. Washington, 705 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
14, 15
United States V. White, 972 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992)
33
United States V. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003)
19
iv
EFTA00027311

=== Page 6 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 6 of 34
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum of law in opposition to defendant
Michael Thomas's motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. No. 33) ("Mot."). Thomas seeks an order
compelling the Government to collect materials that are not in its possession, not discoverable
under any legal basis, and not related to any legally cognizable defense. Thomas's motion is
entirely without merit and should be denied.
Thomas concedes that the Government has produced a "multitude" of discovery directly
relevant to the charges against him. (Mot. 6). Nonetheless, he seeks an order compelling the
Government to collect and produce additional materials that he believes would support his
purported defenses, namely, that he committed the offenses because of staffing issues and
supervisory lapses, and that he was singled out for prosecution. Specifically, Thomas seeks: (i) a
copy of a report being prepared by the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General
("DOJ-OIG"), which does not yet exist and would principally be based on the same primary
materials that the Government produced to Thomas in December 2019 (Mot. 5, 8-9); (ii) reports
and documents prepared by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and other agencies who were not and
are not members of the prosecution team (Mot. 6-7); (iii) reports and documents related to "any
and all [Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC")] employees" who have engaged in "the same
or similar conduct," including an incident in "2005 or 2006" where officers failed to conduct
counts or rounds and an inmate committed suicide (Mot. 6); and (iv) reports, statistics, and
documents related to purported staffing issues, supervisory lapses, and the application of BOP
1
Tova Noel did not file any pretrial motions, and has not joined in Thomas's pretrial
motions. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3) ("If a party does not meet the deadline for making a Rule
12(b)(3) motion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the defense, objection, or
request if the party shows good cause.").
EFTA00027312

=== Page 7 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 7 of 34
policies which relate to the "much larger context" at the BOP (Mot. 6, 7, 9, 10).
As an initial matter, the Government has satisfied its Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio obligations
and is not in possession of the additional materials that Thomas seeks. More importantly, Thomas
is not entitled to compel the Government to collect the additional records for at least four separate
reasons. First, the records are not "material" to preparing a defense because they are wholly
irrelevant to the false statement charges against Thomas and are intended to prompt jurors to
nullify the charges against him. Second, the BOP records Thomas seeks are not in the "possession"
of the prosecution team, and there is no legal basis for compelling the Government to collect
materials from other agencies or components of the Department of Justice who are not and were
not part of the criminal investigation that led to the charges against Thomas. Third, there is no
legal basis to require the Government to produce a draft of the report being prepared by the DOJ-
OIG, which is subject to the deliberative process privilege. Fourth, Thomas is not entitled to
discovery relating to what happened to other MCC employees when they "falsif[ied] the same
documents," (Mot. 6), because he has utterly failed to identify evidence that the decision to
prosecute him had a discriminatory effect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
Thomas's motion should be denied in all respects.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
The Indictment
Indictment 19 Cr. 830 (AT) (the "Indictment") was filed on November 19, 2019, charging
defendants Tova Noel and Michael Thomas in six counts: (i) conspiring to defraud the United
States and to make or use a false writing or document, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 371 (Count One); and (ii) five counts of making or using a false writing or document, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001(a)(3) and 3 (Counts Two through Six).
2
EFTA00027313

=== Page 8 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 8 of 34
Both defendants are charged in Counts One, Four, Five, and Six; defendant Noel only is charged
in Counts Two and Three. The charges in the Indictment stem from a fourteen-hour time period,
from approximately 4:00 p.m. on August 9, 2019 to approximately 6:30 a.m. the following day,
August 10, 2019, when the defendants were working as correctional officers at the MCC. As
charged in the Indictment, during that time period, the defendants failed to perform mandated
counts of prisoners housed in MCC's Special Housing Unit ("SHU"), but nevertheless signed false
certifications attesting to having conducted those counts, when, in fact, no counts or rounds of the
SHU were conducted from approximately 10:30 p.m. on August 9 to 6:30 a.m. on August 10.
II.
Pretrial Discovery and the Defendants' Request for Additional Materials
A.
The Government's Discovery Production
At the initial pretrial conference on November 25, 2019, the Court set a discovery deadline
of December 31, 2019. On that date, pursuant to a protective order entered by the Court, the
Government made a substantial discovery production to both defendants, consisting in part of the
following: surveillance video for the common area of the SHU; analysis of the computers used by
Noel and Thomas from August 9 to 10, 2019; count slips and thirty-minute round reports; MCC
phone records; personnel records and prior work schedules; and reports and notes of witness
interviews prepared by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the DOJ-OIG
who were participating in the investigation.²
Subsequently, the Government made three additional discovery productions, much more
limited in scope. On January 23, 2020, the Government produced additional interview reports and
2 The Government does not concede that production of all of the materials was required
under Rule 16, but nonetheless produced the materials in its possession out of an abundance of
caution.
3
EFTA00027314

=== Page 9 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 9 of 34
notes. On January 30, 2020, 3 the Government reproduced video surveillance footage with
timestamps, and on March 16, 2020, the Government produced forensic reports for three electronic
devices and a photograph of a text message.
B.
Defense Requests for Additional Discovery Materials
The defendants have made a number of requests for additional discovery materials, in
response to which the Government has provided information in its possession as consistent with
Rule 16 and its other disclosure obligations, as described below.
At the initial pretrial conference on November 11, 2019, Thomas, through counsel, raised
the issue of an "ongoing
report" by the Office of the Inspector General and requested the
"status" of the report and when it would be completed. (Conf. Tr., Nov. 25, 2019, at 3-4, 7-9).
In response, the Government explained that "to the extent counsel's asking for a summary of the
results of the criminal investigation, obviously we'll be turning over in discovery all of the
underlying results of the criminal investigation.
I don't have a time frame on the [I]nspector
[G]eneral report, but the [G]overnment will produce to the defense all of the relevant discovery
materials in this matter, which includes the Rule 16 materials relevant to the criminal charges that
have been brought against the defendants." (Id. at 7-8). As there was no pending issue to resolve,
the Court declined to rule at that time.
On January 29, 2020, Thomas and Noel each submitted discovery requests to the
Government. Thomas's letter reiterated his prior request for "any and all reports, memorandums,
3 The January 30, 2020 production was made to Noel's counsel on January 24, 2020, while
the Government was still waiting for an additional hard drive from Thomas's counsel.
4 Based on conversations with attorneys at DOJ-OIG tasked with preparing this report, the
Government understands that the report will likely focus on the events surrounding the death of
Jeffrey Epstein and BOP policies and procedures.
4
EFTA00027315

=== Page 10 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 10 of 34
written statements, photos, videos, and incident reports created, manufactured or possessed by the
United States Inspector General." Noel's January 29 letter sought materials related to the MCC
video surveillance system and additional surveillance video, as well as assistance locating
particular information in the surveillance video footage that the Government had previously
produced in discovery.
At the pretrial conference the following day, Thomas, through counsel, renewed his request
for "whatever investigation was done and whatever information there is that is discoverable with
respect to the Inspector General's report." (Conf. Tr., Jan. 30, 2020, at 6, 9). The Court directed
Thomas to file a motion formalizing his request. (Id. at 9).⁵
The Government responded to the defendants' discovery requests by letter dated March
14, 2020. As for Thomas's request for materials related to any forthcoming Inspector General's
report, the Government referred Thomas to its prior response as stated at the November 25, 2019
pretrial conference. With respect to Noel's requests for additional materials related to the MCC
video surveillance system, the Government explained that to the extent such materials were in the
Government's possession and currently subject to disclosure, they had already been produced. In
addition, the Government provided additional information answering certain of Noel's questions,
including video timestamps to assist with review of the surveillance footage.
On March 27, 2020, Thomas submitted another discovery request to the Government,
seeking, among other things, information from the BOP regarding other correctional officers and
information about the Government's charging decisions. The Government responded by letter
5 Thomas, through counsel, previewed that he would also likely file a motion to dismiss
the indictment based on "selective prosecution." (Conf. Tr., Jan. 30, 2020 at 6). The deadline for
filing motions, which was extended at counsel's request, has passed, and Thomas has failed to
timely file a motion to dismiss.
5
EFTA00027316

=== Page 11 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 11 of 34
dated April 1, 2020, explaining that any responsive information in the Government's possession
and subject to disclosure had already been produced. The letter further explained that to the extent
the requests called for items not in the Government's possession or not subject to disclosure,
Thomas had not identified any legal basis or authority for his requests and the Government was
not aware of any authority requiring the Government to obtain or produce the requested
information.
On April 9, 2020, Thomas filed the instant motion seeking an order from the Court
compelling the Government to produce the following:
The Inspector General's report investigating the death of Jeffrey Epstein
and BOP policies and procedures (referred to herein as the "Inspector
General's Report"), as well as all supporting memoranda and other
documents, (Mot. 4-5);
Any and all "reports generated by investigators within the [BOP] regarding
the August 10, 2019 incident" as well as "documents, reports, witness
statements and disciplinary records of any and all MCC employees who
have engaged in the same or similar conduct," including "results of any
disciplinary proceedings and documents maintained by the BOP regarding
the discipline or administrative adjudication of any other employees who
have failed to conduct rounds or inmate counts," (Mot. 4, 6);
Any previously undisclosed reports, witness statements, and documents
created by "any other federal agencies that investigated the circumstances
surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein," (Mot. 4, 7).
For the reasons that follow, Thomas is not entitled to the materials he seeks, and his motion
should be denied.
6
EFTA00027317

=== Page 12 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 12 of 34
ARGUMENT
I.
Applicable Law
A.
Brady & Giglio
The Government has an obligation under the Due Process Clause to make a timely
disclosure of any exculpatory or impeaching evidence that is material and in its possession. See
Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio V. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); see also
United States V. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 139-40 (2d Cir. 2001). Evidence is "material" in this sense
only if "its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of a trial." United States V. Bagley,
473 U.S. 667, 678 (1985). "The rationale underlying Brady is not to supply a defendant with all
the evidence in the Government's possession which might conceivably assist the preparation of
his defense, but to assure that the defendant will not be denied access to exculpatory evidence only
known to the Government." United States V. LeRoy, 687 F.2d 610, 619 (2d Cir. 1982) (citing
United States V. Ruggiero, 472 F.2d 599, 604 (2d Cir. 1973)).
Impeachment evidence is material only "where the witness at issue supplied the only
evidence linking the defendant(s) to the crime, or where the likely impact on the witness's
credibility would have undermined a critical element of the prosecution's case." United States V.
Payne, 63 F.3d 1200, 1210 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Similarly, "where the undisclosed evidence merely furnishes an additional basis on which to
challenge a witness whose credibility has already been shown to be questionable or is subject to
extensive attack by reason of other evidence, the undisclosed evidence may properly be viewed as
cumulative, and hence not material." United States V. Persico, 645 F.3d 85, 111 (2d Cir. 2011)
(citing cases). With regard to the timing of disclosing material under Giglio, the Second Circuit,
in Coppa, rejected the argument that such material should be disclosed when defendants make a
7
EFTA00027318

=== Page 13 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 13 of 34
demand for it. 267 F.3d at 146. The court held that as a general rule, Brady and its progeny do
not require immediate disclosure of all impeachment material upon a defendant's request. Id. It
found that the time required for its effective use would depend on the materiality of the evidence
as well as the particular circumstances of the case, and suggested that district courts may order
disclosure of material it deems material as a matter of case management. Id. As described above,
the Government disclosed reports and notes of witness statements as part of its discovery
productions, such that the defendants will have possessed substantial material that may serve as
potential impeachment evidence for one year in advance of trial.
B.
Rule 16
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the Government to permit the
defendants to inspect and copy documents and objects within the Government's possession,
custody, or control if the items are material to preparing the defense, if the Government intends to
use them in its case-in-chief at trial, or if the items were obtained from or belong to the defendant.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E). An item is "material to preparing the defense" under Rule 16 "if it
could be used to counter the Government's case or bolster a defense." United States V. Stevens,
985 F.2d 1175, 1180-81 (2d Cir. 1993).
II.
Thomas is Not Entitled to Additional Materials
A.
The Government Has Satisfied its Discovery and Disclosure Obligations
As an initial matter, the Government is aware of, has satisfied, and will continue to satisfy
its discovery and disclosure obligations.
The Government has met its Rule 16 discovery and disclosure obligations. As set forth
above, the Government has produced an expansive amount of discovery, which includes among
other things, hundreds of hours of video surveillance going back to July 5, 2019 (despite the fact
8
EFTA00027319

=== Page 14 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 14 of 34
that the Indictment relates to a 14-hour time period); count slips, thirty minute round forms, and
staffing rosters for the three-week period surrounding Epstein's suicide; internal MCC phone
records; employee files and staffing history for Noel and Thomas; and a wide range of written
Bureau of Prison policies and regulations, among other documents and materials. In addition and
while not required by Rule 16, the Government produced months in advance of trial (and now,
approximately a year in advance of trial) statements for all of the witnesses interviewed during the
investigation. While the Government is not aware of any other information that warrants
disclosure, it will produce any such materials to the extent it becomes aware of them.
The Government is likewise aware of, and has complied with, its Brady and Giglio
obligations. The Government has already produced any evidence in its possession that is arguably
exculpatory or impeaching. To the extent Giglio material exists in notes of witness statements or
attorney proffers made on behalf of witnesses that have not already been produced, the
Government intends to comply with its obligations and will make such disclosures sufficiently in
advance of trial to be effectively used. Based on that representation alone, the defendant's motion
should be denied. See United States V. Gonzalez, No. 19 Cr. 123-2 (NRB), 2020 WL 1809293, at
*5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020) (denying a motion to compel because the government "represented
that it had complied with and would continue to comply with its Brady and Rule 16 obligations);
United States V. Underwood, No. 04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 2005 WL 927012, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21,
2005) ("The courts of this Circuit repeatedly have denied pretrial requests for discovery orders
pursuant to Brady where the government has made such good faith representations."); United
States V. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying defendant's motion to compel
production of Brady based on Government's representation that it was aware of and had complied
with Brady).
9
EFTA00027320

=== Page 15 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 15 of 34
B.
The Requested Records Are Not "Material" to Preparing a Defense and Are
Sought for the Impermissible Purpose of Jury Nullification
All of the records Thomas seeks in his motion are not "material to preparing a defense"
under Rule 16, and are not exculpatory under Brady, because they are irrelevant to countering the
Government's false statements case or advancing a legitimate defense. Instead, Thomas seeks
evidence of staffing shortages, working conditions, the implementation of BOP policies,
supervisory lapses, and instances in which other BOP employees were not prosecuted so that he
can engage in attempted jury nullification by arguing that those conditions "led" to the criminal
conduct that he is charged with and are a reason to acquit him. (Mot. 5, 7, 9, 14). Thomas is not
entitled to records-and certainly would not be entitled to introduce any such evidence at trial-
that would aid in that nullification effort because Rule 16 only entitles a defendant to discovery
for purposes of bolstering a defense to the Government's case in chief, not the merits of the
decision to prosecute.
1.
Applicable Law
An item or record that the Government does not intend to use in its case-in-chief at trial is
discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E) only if it "is material to preparing the defense." Fed. R. Crim.
P. 16(a)(1)(E). "It is [a defendant's] burden to make a prima facie showing that documents sought
under Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) are material to preparing the defense." United States V. Rigas, 258 F.
Supp. 2d 299, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing United States V. McGuinness, 764 F. Supp. 888, 894
(S.D.N.Y. 1991)). As noted above, an item is "material to preparing the defense" under Rule 16
"if it could be used to counter the Government's case or bolster a defense." Stevens, 985 F.2d at
1180-81. The defendant must "offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested
evidence is material." Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d at 307 (internal citation omitted).
As the Supreme Court held in United States V. Armstrong, while Rule 16 authorizes
10
EFTA00027321

=== Page 16 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 16 of 34
defendants to examine records "material to the preparation of their defense against the
Government's case in chief," it does not authorize discovery for defenses that do not rebut the
"merits to the criminal charge itself." 517 U.S. 456, 462-63 (1996) (holding that Rule 16 does not
authorize discovery relating to a selective prosecution claim). For that reason, because evidence
that would be impermissibly used to encourage jury nullification does not relate to the merits of
the criminal charges, it is not discoverable under Rule 16. Id.; see also United States V. Defreitas,
No. 07 Cr. 543 (DLI), 2011 WL 317964, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2011) (rejecting discovery
request related to something that is "not a defense" and has "nothing to do with the issues of
whether defendants
committed the
crimes charged"). Since jury nullification is "a practice
whereby a juror votes in purposeful disregard of the evidence," United States V. Thomas, 116 F.3d
606, 614 (2d Cir. 1997), or "out of compassion or compromise," Standefer V. United States, 447
U.S. 10, 22 (1980) (internal citation omitted), it is not error for a court to preclude evidence that is
"not a valid defense" aimed at nullification, United States V. Edwards, 101 F.3d 17, 19-20 (2d Cir.
1996). See also United States V. Reese, 933 F. Supp. 2d 579, 583-84 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (precluding
defense arguments or evidence related to "possible consequences for the defendant of conviction,
jury nullification, and the Government's motive and conduct in prosecuting [defendant]"); United
States V. Levin, No. 15 Cr. 101 (KBF), 2016 WL 299031, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016) (barring
evidence "intended to elicit sympathy" and attempts to "use jury nullification as a defense" as
"plainly improper"). Indeed, "trial courts have the duty to forestall or prevent jury nullification"
even where the defendant or the court may "strongly disagree[] with the government's charging
decisions and the attendant sentencing consequences." United States V. Manzano, 945 F.3d 616,
626-27 (2d Cir. 2019) (citations & quotation marks omitted).
11
EFTA00027322

=== Page 17 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 17 of 34
2.
Discussion
Thomas's motion makes clear that he intends for his principal defense at trial to be that-
irrespective of his guilt or innocence of the false statements charges-he should be acquitted
because the MCC was understaffed, Thomas was overworked, his supervisors did not catch his
crime in the moment, and falsification of count slips is rampant within the BOP. (See Mot. 3
("staffing issues, staffing shortages, supervisory lapses and the enforcement/interpretation of BOP
procedures go to the heart of his defense to the government's criminal allegations"); 9 ("Mr.
Thomas will assert that the rampant staffing shortages present at the MCC in August of 2019 led
to the conduct for which Mr. Thomas is now criminally charged.")). Thomas has failed to meet
his burden in establishing the materiality of discovery about these topics to preparing a valid
defense because the materials he seeks do not rebut the merits of the criminal charges and instead
would be impermissibly used to encourage jury nullification.
The purported reasons for Thomas's decision to falsify count slips-being tired,
overworked, or understaffed-are not a valid legal defense, and therefore evidence related to those
issues is not relevant. Put simply, were the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas
intentionally made materially false statements and also that did so while tired or overworked, it
would still be required to convict him. See United States V. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 221 (2d Cir. 2005)
(holding that "it was proper for the district court to instruct the jury that it had a duty to find [the
defendant] guilty if the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense
with which he was charged" (internal citation omitted)).
None of Thomas's proffered excuses relate to proving or rebutting the elements of a
violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1001(a)(3) as they do not concern whether a writing or entry was false,
whether it was material to a matter within the jurisdiction of the BOP, or whether he knowingly
12
EFTA00027323

=== Page 18 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 18 of 34
and willfully made a false statement. Nor are those excuses relevant to whether Thomas had a
criminal agreement with his co-defendant. Indeed, evidence as to a defendant's purportedly
innocent motive in a false statement case is irrelevant to the question of intent. See United States
V. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 493-94 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (holding that proof of a good or innocent
motive is not probative of intent where the mens rea is "knowingly and willfully"); In re Terrorist
Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93, 154 n.49 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Washington,
705 F.2d at 493, for "the irrelevance of a motive to the question of whether conduct is intentional");
United States V. George, 786 F. Supp. 56, 64 (D.D.C. 1992) (rejecting the defendant's "context
argument" for why materials could be relevant to the crime charged).
For the same reasons, "other people were doing it" is not a defense to a false statements or
conspiracy charge because the conduct of other BOP employees is irrelevant to each of the
foregoing elements. Thomas argues that because he was aware of incidents where BOP employees
falsified records and "their conduct did not lead to their indictment or incarceration," evidence of
what other BOP employees have done is relevant to his intent. (Mot. 6.) Not so. Whether Thomas
believed falsifying records was illegal or was subject to criminal penalties is not relevant to the
charges against him. See United States V. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1372 (2d Cir. 1985)
("Ignorance of the law is no defense to a charge of purposeful and intentional action."); United
States V. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598, 601 n.2 (3d Cir. 1972) ("As long as the inexcusable intent is
present, it is not necessary that the defendant know that his conduct is subject to criminal
penalties."). And in any event, it would be fundamentally inappropriate, and extremely prejudicial,
for the jury to consider other individuals not on trial or otherwise relevant to the conduct charged
here, in evaluating the guilt or innocence of the defendant. See United States V. Gibbons, 602 F.2d
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1979) (approving instruction that jury was not to consider individuals who
13
EFTA00027324

=== Page 19 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 19 of 34
were not on trial).
Thomas's efforts to garner sympathy, put the Government on trial, and deflect blame for
his own criminal actions plainly sound in nullification. See Reese, 933 F. Supp. 2d at 583-84;
Levin, 2016 WL 2990831, at *12. Evidence on those points does not relate to whether the
defendant committed the crimes charged, but rather is intended to elicit sympathy, compassion, or
compromise from the jury. The records Thomas seeks are no more discoverable than the
nullification evidence precluded in Armstrong and its progeny. See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 462-
63 (defendant not entitled to discovery on race of other narcotics defendants to aid in selective
prosecution claim); United States V. Delacruz, No. 14 Cr. 815 (KBF), 2015 WL 2211943, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2015) (rejecting defendant's "demands for general information and statistics
relating to the Government's use of sting operations"); United States V. Floyd, No. 99 Cr. 0234
(DAB), 1999 WL 476438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 1999) (rejecting discovery request for
"background data, records and investigative reports" of the New York City Police Department
("NYPD") as well as information about NYPD officers' conduct in other cases); Defreitas, 2011
WL 317964, at *10 (rejecting discovery demands related to a "factual impossibility" defense to a
conspiracy charge). It is the Court's "duty to forestall or prevent" jury nullification. Manzano,
945 F.3d at 627 (holding that "District courts have a duty to forestall or prevent [jury nullification
arguments] and the district court in this case abdicated its duty by ruling that defense counsel could
argue jury nullification."); see also United States V. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1984)
(criticizing trial court for inviting nullification by permitting the defendants to mount a "political
defense" and stating that it was an "erroneous assumption that good motive for committing a crime
is inconsistent with criminal intent").
In sum, much of the additional discovery Thomas seeks in his motion relates to legally
14
EFTA00027325

=== Page 20 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 20 of 34
irrelevant matters, such as what "led" him to the criminal conduct or the broader "context" in
which he committed specific criminal acts. There is no basis to compel production of evidence
related to those matters under Rule 16, Brady, or Giglio because they are not material and because
the evidence sought is in furtherance of a transparent attempt at nullification. Thomas's motion
should be denied on this basis alone.
C.
The Government is Not Required to Collect Materials From Agencies Who
Were Not Part of the Prosecution Team
Thomas asks the Court to compel the Government to produce "any reports, witness
statements, memorandum, and documents from any separate investigation conducted by the
BOP," "documents, reports, witness statements and disciplinary records of any and all MCC
employees who have engaged in the same or similar conduct," and any previously undisclosed
reports, witness statements, and documents created by "any other federal agencies that investigated
the circumstances surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein." (Mot. 4, 7 (emphasis added)). Even
if Thomas had satisfied the materiality requirement under Rule 16 or Brady with respect to these
items-and he has not-Thomas's motion would still fail because the materials he seeks are not
in the prosecution team's possession.
The BOP is not, and never has been, part of the prosecution team. Nor did the BOP conduct
an investigation jointly or in coordination with the prosecution team.6 To require the Government
to obtain and produce any records from the BOP from a separate investigation, as well as evidence
that would support Thomas's purported (and improper, for the reasons discussed in Part II.B,
6 The defendant claims, based on a CNN article, that the U.S. Marshal Service ("USMS")
conducted an investigation. The Government is unaware of such an investigation, and in any
event, any such inquiry by the USMS was not conducted jointly or in coordination with the
prosecution team.
15
EFTA00027326

=== Page 21 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 21 of 34
supra) defenses, is not legally required and would impose a nearly insurmountable obligation on
the Government of marshaling and reviewing information and data in the possession of an entirely
separate entity.
1.
Applicable Law
As described above, Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio apply to materials in the Government's
"possession." As a general matter, while "[a]n individual prosecutor is presumed
to have
knowledge of all information gathered in connection with his office's investigation of the
case,
knowledge on the part of persons employed by a different office of the government does
not in all instances warrant the imputation of knowledge to the prosecutor." United States V.
Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). The imposition of such "an
unlimited duty on a prosecutor to inquire of other offices not working with the prosecutor's office
on the case in question would inappropriately require us to adopt a monolithic view of government'
that would "condemn the prosecution of criminal cases to a state of paralysis." Id. (citation &
quotation marks omitted); see also Kyles V. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995) (Government's
discovery and disclosure obligations extend only to information in the custody of the prosecutor
or "others acting on the government's behalf in the case"). Thus, discovery and disclosure
obligations only extend "information known to persons who are a part of the "prosecution
team'
who perform investigative duties or make strategic decisions about the prosecution of
the case," including "police officers and federal agents who submit to the direction of the
prosecutor and participate in the investigation." United States V. Barcelo, 628 F. App'x 36, 38 (2d
Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Brady is not a basis to compel the Government to gather information
in the possession of third parties on behalf of the defense. See United States V. Yousef, 327 F.3d
16
EFTA00027327

=== Page 22 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 22 of 34
56, 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (defendants were not deprived of due process by any alleged failure of U.S.
government to help them obtain cooperation from foreign authorities).
In considering whether Rule 16 and Brady apply to records in the possession of another
government agency, a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing such evidence only where the
Government conducts a "joint investigation" with that agency or branch of government. See
United States V. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court opinion holding that
there was "no joint investigation with the [Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")]" and
therefore the Government did not need to produce documents in the custody of the SEC); United
States V. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736, 742-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding that the Government
was not obligated to review SEC material for Brady where SEC was not involved in grand jury
presentation, did not attend every interview, did not review documents gathered only by
prosecution, and did not develop prosecutorial strategy); United States V. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr.
36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (holding that the Government was
not required to conduct a search because the [Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
("PCAOB")] was not involved in witness interviews or developing prosecutorial strategy, and the
SEC was not involved in the grand jury presentation, reviewing the fruits of the Government's
investigation, or developing prosecutorial strategy); United States V. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228,
241-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no joint investigation between Government and SEC); United States V.
Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Chin, J.) (no joint investigation between
Government and New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE")); United States V. Upton, 856 F. Supp.
727, 749-50 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that USAO and Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA")
did not conduct a "joint investigation" even though the FAA provided two inspectors to assist the
criminal investigation).
17
EFTA00027328

=== Page 23 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 23 of 34
Moreover, even where agents from a component of an agency are involved in an
investigation, that does not render the entirety of an agency part of the prosecution team. See, e.g.,
United States V. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720, 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("While the prosecution's [Rule
16] disclosure obligation in some circumstances may extend to materials beyond the knowledge
of the individual prosecutors assigned to a case, it does not extend to the collective knowledge of
the entire United States government or even to the entire government agency concerned."); United
States V. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 218 (3d Cir. 2005) ("[T]hat other agents in the ([Department of
Labor ("DOL")] participated in this investigation does not mean that the entire DOL is properly
considered part of the prosecution team."); see also United States V. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 949 (2d
Cir.1993) (refusing, for Brady purposes, to impute to AUSAs prosecuting that action with the
assistance of certain FBI agents knowledge of reports prepared by FBI agents who were
"uninvolved in the investigation or trial of the defendants"); but see United States V. Ghailani, 687
F. Supp. 2d 365, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that, in the context of a speedy trial motion, other
members of the Department of Justice who were involved in making decisions about timing and
progress of the case were part of the "government" for Rule 16 purposes).
Thus, as the foregoing precedents recognize, the factors relevant in determining whether
an agency or a component of an agency are part of the prosecution team, and therefore their records
are in the "possession" of the Government include whether the agency or component: "(1)
participated in the prosecution's witness interviews, (2) was involved in presenting the case to the
grand jury, (3) reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution, (4)
played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy, or (5) accompanied the prosecution to
court proceedings." Middendorf, 2018 WL 3956494, at *4.
18
EFTA00027329

=== Page 24 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 24 of 34
2.
Discussion
As described above, the Government has produced Brady, Giglio, and Rule 16 material in
the possession of the prosecutors and agents at the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and
the DOJ-OIG who have worked on this investigation and prosecution. Thomas seeks materials
that are not in the possession of the United States Attorney's Office or the case teams at the FBI
and DOJ-OIG who worked on this criminal investigation.
Thomas seeks a variety of records from the BOP. The BOP was not a member of the
prosecution team, and no employee of the BOP performed investigative duties or made strategic
decisions about the prosecution of the case. Indeed, the Government obtained records from the
MCC (a component of the BOP) pursuant to a grand jury subpoena to the institution and written
requests to the MCC's legal department. Likewise, the Government was not involved in any
internal BOP investigation into the circumstances surrounding Epstein's suicide. Notwithstanding
those facts, the defendant asserts that the BOP is "allied with the prosecution" and therefore the
Government's discovery and disclosure obligations extend to materials exclusively in the
possession of the BOP. That argument is not only belied by the facts, but it is settled law in this
Circuit that a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing the materials in the possession, custody, or
control of another agency for Brady evidence only where the Government conducts a "joint
investigation" with that agency. None of the indicia of a "joint" or "allied" prosecution, as
discussed in the foregoing case law, is present here. A straightforward application of those factors
considered by courts in this Circuit reveals that the investigation was in no way joint: the BOP did
not participate in the prosecution's witness interviews; it was not involved in presenting the case
to the grand jury; no BOP employees aided in the review of documents gathered by the
19
EFTA00027330

=== Page 25 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 25 of 34
Government; the BOP was not involved in the strategic decisions; and no BOP personnel
accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings.
Moreover, even if the BOP had conducted a joint investigation with the Government into
the events of August 9 and 10, 2019 (which they did not), Thomas has offered no reason to believe
that most if not all of the records that he seeks-such as records of other instances of BOP
employees failing to conduct rounds and counts-would be part of the BOP's investigation. There
is simply no basis to seek an order compelling the Government to search for records in the
possession of the BOP, without any temporal limitation or factual nexus to the charged case,
regarding staffing shortages at the MCC, other instances where BOP employees failed to conduct
required rounds and counts, and disciplinary records for other BOP employees who have at other
times also allegedly falsified records.
The cases Thomas cites do not support a contrary result. In United States V. Bryan, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that the government could not limit its discovery obligations to documents
located in the district of prosecution since the case came out of a single, nationwide IRS
investigation. 868 F.2d 1032, 1035-37 (9th Cir. 1989). In reaching that holding, the Circuit
explained that "a federal prosecutor need not comb the files of every federal agency which might
have documents regarding the defendant" and that Rule 16's disclosure requirements are cabined
to anything in the possession "of any federal agency participating in the same investigation of the
defendant." Id. at 1036 (emphasis added). Similarly, in United States V. Volpe, 42 F. Supp. 2d
204, 221 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), the court explained, in denying the defendant's discovery motion, that
"[c]ourts have construed the term 'government'
narrowly to mean the prosecutors in the
particular case or the governmental agencies jointly involved in the prosecution of the defendant,
and not the 'government' in general." And while the court in United States V. Libby, 429 F. Supp.
20
EFTA00027331

=== Page 26 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 26 of 34
2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2006), required the prosecutors to obtain records from the Office of the Vice
President and the Central Intelligence Agency, even though those parts of government did not
participate in the grand jury investigation, that holding was an outlier, which has never been cited
by another court, and the decision itself has never been cited in this Circuit.
Finally, even if such materials had any conceivable relevance to the charges at hand (which,
as discussed above, they do not), asking the Government to conduct a broad canvassing of the
BOP's records-including searching databases located out of state, reviewing large quantities of
documents, attempting to pull archived records going back as far as 2005, and parsing through
attorney work product-would be inordinately time consuming and burdensome for attorneys for
the Government, which does not have custody of the files, is not familiar with the files, and knows
of no effective way to search them. It would, as the Circuit warned against in Avellino, "condemn
the prosecution of criminal cases to a state of paralysis." 136 F.3d at 255. Such a result is not
legally required by Rule 16, Brady, or Giglio, and therefore Thomas's motion should be denied.
D.
Any Draft Inspector General Report is Not Subject to Disclosure
Thomas argues that any report by the Inspector General and related materials must be
produced because he speculates that such a report will address systemic issues at the BOP,
including purported staffing shortages at the MCC. (Mot. 5, 9-10). For the reasons set forth above,
any draft Inspector General Report is not discoverable because the issues Thomas believes it will
discuss are not material to the preparation of a valid defense, see Part II.B, and the draft reports,
to the extent they exist, are protected from disclosure by the deliberative process privilege. While
the prosecution team has had no involvement in writing the Inspector General Report, the
Government understands that those attorneys from DOJ-OIG responsible for writing the Report
have not yet completed a draft, and do not anticipate completing the Report in the near term. As
21
EFTA00027332

=== Page 27 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 27 of 34
such, there are no drafts of the Report to disclose, and Thomas's motion can be denied on that
reason alone. Moreover, Thomas's request for draft versions of the Report-which do not yet
exist-fails for two additional reasons.
First, drafts of the Inspector General's Report, which has not been completed and will
likely make recommendations about reforms at the BOP, are protected from disclosure under the
deliberative process privilege, which "covers 'documents reflecting advisory opinions,
recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions
and policies are formulated." Dep't of Interior V. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass 'n, 532
U.S. 1, 8 (2001) (quoting N.L.R.B. V. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975)). The
privilege is applicable in criminal and civil cases involving the government. See, e.g., United
States V. Fernandez, 231 F.3d 1240, 1246-47 (9th Cir. 2000) (government's death penalty
evaluation form and prosecution memoranda were shielded from discovery under the deliberative
process privilege); In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737-40 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (indicating that the
privilege applies to grand jury subpoenas); United States V. Frank, 8 F. Supp. 2d 253, 284
(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (internal memoranda covered by privilege). "In order for the privilege to apply,
the agency record at issue must be (1) an inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letter; (2)
pre-decisional; and (3) deliberative." Nat'l Res. Def. Council V. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 954 F.3d
150, 155 (2d Cir. 2020). "It is well-settled that draft documents, by their very nature, are typically
pre-decisional and deliberative [because] [t]hey reflect only the tentative view of their authors;
views that might be altered or rejected upon further deliberation by their authors or by their
superiors." Color of Change V. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 325 F. Supp. 3d 447, 453 (S.D.N.Y.
2018) (quoting Amnesty Int 'l USA V. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)).
The Inspector General's Report is both pre-decisional and deliberative. A full draft has not
22
EFTA00027333

=== Page 28 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 28 of 34
been completed, let alone reached a point where the final version will be disclosed to the public.
It is also deliberative in that it will likely make recommendations about the BOP, and those
recommendations will be under discussion within the Office of the Inspector General prior to being
finalized and publicly announced. Internal deliberations are an important tool for agencies in
reaching decisions, including recommendations in DOJ-OIG reports. The ability to have these
discussions is important in identifying a broad range of policy and legal issues. Here, disclosure
of any draft report or other work product related to the preparation of the Report will undermine
the DOJ-OIG's ability to engage in meaningful discussions of the issues at the BOP relating to
inmate security and staffing, among other topics, and will potentially stifle rigorous discourse on
the issues. Accordingly, Thomas's motion should be denied for the reason that the materials
sought are protected by the deliberative process privilege. Klamath, 532 U.S. at 9.
Second, Thomas has offered no support for his contention that drafts of the Inspector
General's Report itself (and any related work product)-as opposed to the underlying materials
upon which the Report is based-are subject to disclosure. To the extent that the forthcoming
Inspector General's Report relies on information gathered during the instant investigation and
prosecution, those underlying materials-which focus primarily on the events of August 9 and 10,
2019, the incarceration of Jeffrey Epstein, and related MCC records-have already been disclosed
to the defendants. Thomas contends that those tasked with preparing the Report may "possibl[y]"
have generated additional witness statements and "other information" that has not been produced
by the Government to date. (Mot. 5). Thomas provides no support for such assertions besides
mere speculation. The prosecution has inquired of the Washington D.C.-based attorneys who are
preparing the Inspector General's Report. Based on those conversations, it is the prosecution's
understanding that those attorneys have not conducted any additional interviews or otherwise
23
EFTA00027334

=== Page 29 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 29 of 34
discovered any potential Brady material. As such, given that the prosecution has already produced
in discovery all of the materials it provided to the DOJ-OIG attorneys preparing the Report, the
underlying materials for the Report would be merely cumulative of information in the defendants'
possession. Any analysis of those materials by the attorneys preparing the Inspector General's
Report is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Rule 16 and cannot constitute Brady material. See
United States V. Lewis, 35 F.3d 148, 150 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting generally that "nothing contained
in [an] OIG report would ordinarily have been discoverable").
At bottom, Thomas has not cited a single authority requiring the production of a draft,
unpublished report by an inspector general or related work product, and such production is not
required by Rule 16, Brady, Giglio, or any other disclosure obligation.
E.
Thomas Has Not Carried His Burden With Respect to Discovery of Material
in Support of a Selective Prosecution Claim
Thomas seeks "information and statistics that show the conduct in which the defendant is
being charged with a crime were
rampant throughout the BOP" and that the application of
criminal laws to him is "possibl[y] discriminatory." (Mot. 7.) This request, which is effectively a
demand for discovery in furtherance of a selective prosecution claim, should be denied not only
for the reasons set forth in Section II.B, but also because Thomas has not made the requisite
showing that is necessary to obtain discovery for a selective prosecution claim. Indeed, Thomas
has failed to put forth any evidence that his prosecution was the result of discriminatory effect or
discriminatory purpose.
1.
Applicable Law
"A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself,
but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by
the Constitution." Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468. The standard to prove this defense is "a demanding
24
EFTA00027335

=== Page 30 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 30 of 34
one," id., as the defendant must "overcome the strong presumption of regularity on the part of
federal prosecutors, and 'in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they
have properly discharged their official duties." United States V. Sanders, 17 F. Supp. 2d 141, 144
(E.D.N.Y. 1998) (quoting Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464), aff'd 211 F.3d 711 (2d Cir. 2000).
A defendant claiming selective prosecution must present "clear evidence" that the decision
to prosecute not only (1) "had a discriminatory effect" but was also (2) "motivated by a
discriminatory purpose." Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465; United States V. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 173
(2d Cir. 2003); United States V. Fares, 978 F.2d 52, 59 (2d Cir. 1992); United States V. Moon, 718
F.2d 1210, 1229 (2d Cir. 1983). "The discriminatory effect prong requires a showing that
"similarly situated individuals of a different [classification] were not prosecuted." Alameh, 341
F.3d at 173 (quoting Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465). In other words, the defendant must show that
he has been "singled out" as a member of a protected class. Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (quoting Moon,
718 F.2d at 1229). To establish discriminatory purpose, the defendant must show that the
Government's discriminatory "selection of the defendant for prosecution has been invidious or in
bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to
prevent his exercise of constitutional rights." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration
incorporated). Where a defendant "has not shown that the Government prosecuted him because
of" his protected status or conduct, his claim fails. Id.
In order to obtain discovery on a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must offer
"some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense."
Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468 (quoting United States V. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207, 1211 (2d Cir. 1974));
United States V. Bass, 536 U.S. 862, 863 (2002) (per curiam) (to obtain discovery, a defendant
accordingly first "must show some evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory
25
EFTA00027336

=== Page 31 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 31 of 34
intent"); Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (same). "[T]he showing necessary to obtain discovery should itself
be a significant barrier to the litigation of insubstantial claims." Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464.
"Mere assertions and generalized proffers on information and belief are insufficient" to meet this
burden. Fares, 978 F.2d at 59; see, e.g., Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470 (affidavits "recount[ing]
hearsay and report[ing] personal conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence" are not sufficient to
justify discovery); Berrios, 501 F.2d at 1211 (affidavit from defendant and attorney that they
"believe[d]" there was improper motive and that "hundreds" of similarly situated individuals went
unprosecuted was insufficient); Alameh, 341 F.3d at 174 (defendant's statistical analysis was
insufficient to merit discovery on selective prosecution claim).
2.
Discussion
Thomas is not entitled to discovery that would relate to a selective procession or
"discriminatory application" claim. He has not carried his burden through a showing of any
evidence that his prosecution for the charges in the Indictment is discriminatory.
As to the first required prong (discriminatory effect), Thomas has failed to put forth any
evidence that "others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of
conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against [him]." Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (internal
quotation marks omitted). "A similarly situated offender is one outside the protected class who
has committed roughly the same crime under roughly the same circumstances but against whom
the law has not been enforced." United States V. Lewis, 517 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2008). Thomas
alleges that there was an "almost identical incident in 2005 or 2006 wherein officers failed to
conduct institutional counts or rounds and an inmate committed suicide," and one of the four
officers involved was given a suspension. (Mot. 6). But Thomas is not charged with failing to
conduct counts, he is charged with making false statements about those counts. Even assuming
26
EFTA00027337

=== Page 32 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 32 of 34
those officers "in 2005 or 2006" did falsify count slips, Thomas has still not put forth any evidence
that those officers were "outside of the protected class," meaning of a different race, gender,
nationality, or other protected class than Thomas. In any event, even were the conduct similar,
that Thomas can point to but a single other instance in which officers were not criminally
prosecuted for that type of conduct hardly rings of selectiveness.
Similarly, Thomas points to the fact that "Officer-1" and "Officer-2" in the Indictment,
who falsified count slips along with Tova Noel for the 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. institutional counts on
August 9, 2019, respectively, were not prosecuted. (Mot. 10; Ind. 11 15, 17, 19). Even assuming
arguendo that Officer-1 and Officer-2 were similarly situated to Thomas in that they each falsified
one count slip-while Thomas falsified three-Thomas has failed to put forth any evidence that
either Officer-1 or Officer-2 were outside of a "protected class" to which Thomas belongs.⁷ Nor
could he: Officer-1 and Officer-2 are the same race, gender, and nationality as Thomas. Thomas
also questions why his supervisors or other MCC personnel who received and reviewed Thomas's
false count slips were not also prosecuted with making false statements, but those supervisors or
personnel are not similarly situated to Thomas because they did not actually make the false
statements-Thomas did. In addition, Courts have repeatedly held that the "suspicion [and]
surmise" contained in Thomas's motion simply do not constitute "objective evidence" warranting
discovery. See United States V. White, 972 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1992) (conclusory allegations as to
timing of indictment, Government's failure to follow internal guidelines, and improprieties of
7 In so noting, the Government does not intend to comment on its deliberative process or
the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion. It notes these facts simply in response to Thomas's
claim that the lack of charges against Officer-1, Officer-2, or Thomas's supervisors is in and of
itself sufficient to meet the defendant's burden of establishing evidence of a similarly situated
defendant who was not charged.
27
EFTA00027338

=== Page 33 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 33 of 34
prosecutors not "objective evidence" warranting discovery); Moon, 718 F.2d at 1230 ("to engage
in a collateral inquiry respecting prosecutorial motive, there must be more than mere suspicion or
surmise"). Thomas's failure to make an evidentiary showing in support of the first required prong
means that his motion for discovery on his selective prosecution claim must be denied. See, e.g.,
Bass, 536 U.S. at 863.
As to the second required prong, Thomas has failed to even allege, let alone establish, that
the decision to prosecute him was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. To make such a
showing, a defendant must establish that the Government's "selection of the defendant for
prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations
as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights." Fares, 978 F.2d at
59 (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration incorporated). Thomas has not put forth any
evidence whatsoever that the Government's decision to prosecute Thomas was based on anything
other than his guilt. Instead, Thomas challenges the Government's decision to prosecute him at
all, based on his wholly unsupported claim that the criminal conduct with which he is charged is
"rampant" within the BOP. (Mot. 7). But the mere fact that other people were not prosecuted for
committing the crime that Thomas committed does not mean that the Government harbored
discriminatory intent in prosecuting Thomas. 8
8 Even if Thomas had not failed to carry his burden on his discovery motion (and he has
failed), he would still not be entitled to put such evidence or argument regarding selective
prosecution before a jury because the "selective prosecution defense is an issue for the court rather
than the jury." Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082. The Second Circuit's directive makes sense. A claim of
improper prosecutorial motive, whatever its ground or grounds, "is not a defense on the merits to
the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge
for reasons forbidden by the Constitution." Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 463. Instead, it is self-
evidently "unrelated to factual innocence of the crime charged," which is the sole issue to be
decided by the jury, and, as a result, the Court alone must resolve a claim of selective prosecution.
Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082; see also United States V. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1984)
(criticizing admission of evidence about the propriety of a prosecution "for turning the trial away
28
EFTA00027339

=== Page 34 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 34 of 34
Having failed to meet the "rigorous standard" required to obtain discovery on a selective
prosecution defense, Thomas's requests for discovery of any materials related to other incidents
in which officers were not prosecuted for falsifying count slips should be denied. Armstrong, 517
U.S. at 464.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to compel should be denied.
Dated: New York, New York
April 24, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
By:
Assistant United States Attorneys
from a determination of whether the elements of the offense charged had been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters far beyond the scope of legitimate issues
in a criminal trial"). Accordingly, courts routinely and correctly preclude defendants from raising
these arguments at trial. See Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082 ("[W]e agree with the district court's
decision to resolve for itself whether the government's conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan
from presenting evidence on that subject."); United States V. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), Dkt.
622 (precluding argument regarding propriety of Government's prosecution), United States V.
Stewart, Cr. No. 03-717 (MGC), 2004 WL 113506, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004) (granting
motion to preclude the defendant from "presenting arguments or evidence that would invite the
jury to question the Government's motives in investigating and indicting" the defendant); United
States V. Larkin, No. 12-CR-319, 2017 WL 928915, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2017) ("Defendant will
be precluded from presenting evidence regarding the government's motive for prosecution in the
instant case as such evidence is not relevant."); United States V. Starks, No. 10-CR-0160, 2012
WL 12878587, at *1 (N.D. Miss. July 20, 2012) (same).
29
EFTA00027340


c1: EFTA00027199
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027199.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Grand Jury Subpoena
United States District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TO:
Navy Federal Credit Union
820 Follin Lane
Vienna, VA 22180-4907
Attn: Subpoena Compliance
GREETINGS:
WE COMMAND YOU that all and singular business and excuses being laid aside, you appear and attend before
the GRAND JURY of the people of the United States for the Southern District of New York, at the United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Room 220, in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, in the
Southern District of New York, at the following date, time and place:
Appearance Date:
August 30, 2019
Appearance Time: 10:00 a.m.
to testify and give evidence in regard to an alleged violation of :
18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 371, 1001, 1346, 1519, 2
and not to depart the Grand Jury without leave thereof, or of the United States Attorney, and that you
bring with you and produce at the above time and place the following:
Please see attached rider. Personal appearance is not required if the requested records are (1) produced on or
before the return date to Assistant U.S. Attorney
of the United States Attorney's Office, 1 St.
Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007. Tel:
, email:
, and (2)
accompanied by an executed copy of the attached Declaration of Custodian of Records. Ref No. 2019R01059.
Failure to attend and produce any items hereby demanded will constitute contempt of court and will
subject you to civil sanctions and criminal penalties, in addition to other penalties of the Law.
DATED: New York, New York
August 17, 2019
Geoffey
S.
with
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
IIIIII UNITED COURT
Assistant United States Attorney
FOR
One St. Andrew's Plaza
THE
RICT
YORK
New York, New York 10007
or
NEW
Telephone:
Email:
rev. 02.01.12
EFTA00027199

=== Page 2 ===
RIDER
(Grand Jury Subpoena to Navy Federal Credit Union, dated August 17, 2019)
Ref. No. 2019R01059
REQUEST:
For the following account, and any other account controlled by the account holder of one of the below
accounts:
Please provide any and all documents, to include, but not limited to those identified below, for the period
January 1, 2019 until the present:
a. Account opening documents, including applications and signature cards;
b. Records of account holders for debit and credit cards liked to the accounts;
c. Account statements and ledgers;
d. Images of checks (both front and back) deposited in account;
e. Images of canceled checks (both front and back) drawn on account;
f. Images of cashier's checks (both front and back) and depositing bank account information;
g. Account deposit slips, withdrawal slips, debit & credit memos, and cash tickets;
h. Detailed wire transfer records, ACH transfer records (including routing/account numbers funds
transferred to/from), money orders, and traveler's check records;
i. All credit card and line of credit records, including, but not limited to: applications, monthly
statements, billing slips, and records evidencing the source of payment (copies of checks, ACH
records (including routing/account numbers funds transferred to/from), or cash received slips);
j. Customer information associated with the account, including name(s), address(es), telephone
number(s), e-mail address(es), and any other identifying or contact information.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS:
1. All transactions-based information, include wire and ACH transfers, withdrawals/deposits,
charges/payments, and bank account activity should be provided in electronic spreadsheet
format (either Microsoft Excel or similarly compatible format). Specifically:
a. For wires and other types of transfers, the account holder name, account number, and bank
name of both the originator and beneficiary of the transaction should be clearly stated in
separate fields.
b. Cash and check transactions should be indicated within a transaction type field.
i. Check transactions should include the name of the payee in the recipient
field. Additionally, check images should be attached in graphic data files in a commonly
readable, non-proprietary format with the highest image quality maintained, and named in
a manner that uniquely associates them with the relevant transaction record(s).
ii. Cash withdrawals should be indicated with CASH written in the recipient field.
EFTA00027200

=== Page 3 ===
iii. Cash deposits should be indicated with CASH written in the sender/originator field.
c. Field headers should be included for each column of data, and a data dictionary or other
explanation of the contents of each column provided.
2. Where more than one account is being requested, each account's transaction records should be
returned in a separate file.
3. All document images are to be produced in electronic PDF format. Where images of checks,
deposit slips, withdrawal slips, or cash tickets are being produced, they should be produced no
more than two per page.
4. In lieu of an appearance you may comply with this subpoena by providing the requested
information, along with a business records certification pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) to
Assistant U.S. Attorney
of the United States Attorney's Office, 1 St. Andrew's
Plaza, New York, NY 10007. Tel:
, email:
EFTA00027201

=== Page 4 ===
Declaration of Custodian of Records
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, the undersigned, hereby declare:
My name is
.
(name of declarant)
I am a United States citizen and I am over eighteen years of age. I am the custodian of records of the
business named below, or I am otherwise qualified as a result of my position with the business named below to
make this declaration.
I am in receipt of a Grand Jury Subpoena, dated August 17, 2019, and signed by Assistant United States
Attorney
,
requesting specified records of the business named below. Pursuant to Rules 902(11) and
803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, I hereby certify that the records provided herewith and in response to the
Subpoena:
(1) were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth in the records, by, or from
information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;
(2) were kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity; and
(3) were made by the regularly conducted business activity as a regular practice.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on
-
(date)
(signature of declarant)
(name and title of declarant)
(name of business)
(business address)
Definitions of terms used above:
As defined in Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), "record" includes a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts,
events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses. The term "business" as used in Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and the above declaration
includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for
profit.
EFTA00027202

=== Page 5 ===
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
August 17, 2019
Re:
Grand Jury Subpoena
This letter describes the procedure for requesting reimbursement for subpoenaed records.
12 CFR part 219 (subpart A), issued by the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System under section
1115 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. $ 3415), sets the rates and conditions for reimbursement of
costs directly incurred by financial institutions in assembling or providing customer financial records to a
government authority pursuant to the Act. No costs are reimbursable if the records are those of a corporation or a
partnership comprised of more than five individuals.
If reimbursement is authorized, and the estimated billing to the government will exceed $500, advance
permission is necessary from
at
If the subpoenaed records indicated on the rider are eligible for reimbursement, please complete section B
of the enclosed form OBD-211, which will serve as your invoice, and return it with a copy of the subpoena to the
following address:
U.S. Attorney's Office - SDNY
Accounts Payable
86 Chambers Street, 3rd floor
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-2662
Please send your invoice to the above address within 60 days of the submission of the subpoenaed records.
If no invoice is received within 120 days, funds will not be available to pay the invoice.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
By:
/s/
Assistant United States Attorney
Enclosure: OBD- 211
EFTA00027203


c1: EFTA00028829
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028829.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Final Voucher 10761545(1) approved by
,
now awaiting further approval
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 20:14:27 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Final voucher 10761545(1) has been approved by
, now awaiting further approval.
Trip ID: 10761545
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name:
Purpose: R20NYS13117 - U.S. V. Epstein - Witness Interviews
Destination: West Palm Beach, FL, United States
Dates: 2019-11-04 - 2019-11-04
Current status: Pending Voucher Approval
Voucher total expenses: 421.70
Estimated trip cost: 836.70
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# V0010
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00028829


c1: EFTA00028165
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028165.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 409 Filed 11/03/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 11/3/21
United States of America,
-v-
20-CR-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
ORDER
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint letter in response to this Court's order dated
October 31, 2021. Dkt. No. 406. The Court will hold a hearing on November 10, 2021 at 9:00
a.m. on the Defendant's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, the
Defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert V.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386, and the other
outstanding issues that overlap with these two motions as discussed at the November 1, 2021
conference. The proceeding will take place in Courtroom 110 of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square,
New York, New York. The Court will provide information on public access (for the portion of
the Daubert hearing that does not overlap with the Rule 412 issues) as soon as it is available.
Otherwise, the Court will order the following briefing schedule if the Government seeks
to exclude any of the Defendant's anticipated witness testimony as disclosed in her November 1,
2021 notice. See Dkt. No. 406:
Government brief to be filed on ECF: November 8, 2021
Defense response brief to be filed on ECF: November 11, 2021
1
EFTA00028165

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 409 Filed 11/03/21 Page 2 of 2
The parties are further ORDERED to docket Exhibit A to Dkt. No. 406 with any
proposed redactions on or before November 8, 2021. In order to facilitate the Court's review of
any proposed redactions, the parties must also submit via email a highlighted copy.
so ORDERED.
Dated: November 3, 2021
Alim D. Netto
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
2
EFTA00028166


c1: EFTA00028272
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028272.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
USANYS) [Contractor]"
)"I
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
)"
Subject: RE: Defense Rule 16 Disclosure
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 22:56:42 +0000
Attachments: 2021.11.08_Letter_to_Government_re_Rule_16_Disclosure.PDF
Thank you for doing this. The defense's November 8 letter (attached) lists a bunch of Government discovery in 12
subcategories. Could you please take a look at the letter and put copies of the bates numbers the defense has identified
and put them in subfolders in the folder that
created (e.g., AT&T, Federal Express, etc). I added a subfolder as an
example. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 12:51 PM
To
)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Defense Rule 16 Disclosure
Thanks! Saved here: \Usa.doj.gov\cloud\NYS\StAndrews\Shared\USvEpstein-2018R01618\Discovery\GM\Defense Rule
16 Disclosures\2021.11.08 Defense Rule 16 Disclosure
From:
)
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 12:44 PM
To:
USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
USANYS) [Contractor]
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Defense Rule 16 Disclosure
In the discovery folder. Thanks!
On Nov 9, 2021, at 12:25 PM,
(USANYS) [Contractor]
wrote:
Hi team - apologies for just getting to this now. Where on the shared would you like these saved? Thanks!
From:
)
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:40 PM
To:
USANYS) [Contracto
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS)
EFTA00028272

=== Page 2 ===
)
Subject: FW: Defense Rule 16 Disclosure
Hi
could you please save these on the shared? Thanks!
From: Christian Everdell
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:32 PM
To:
)
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <
Laura Menninger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Defense Rule 16 Disclosure
and
Attached is the defense Rule 16 disclosure.
Regards,
Chris
Christian R Everdell
<image001.gif>
view bio
www.cohengresser.com
New York
Paris
Washington DC
London
<image002.jpg>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended to be reviewed initially by only
the individual named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify
the sender by telephone and permanently delete this e-mail. Thank you.
PRIVACY: A complete copy of our privacy policy can be viewed at: https://www.cohengresser.com/privacy-policy.
EFTA00028273


c1: EFTA00029432
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029432.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Jeffrey Epstein
To:
Jes Staley
Sent:
7/10/2010 3:27:04 PM
Subject:
Re:
well one side is availble
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Jes Staley
wrote:
Beauty and the Beast
From: Jeffrey Epstein
To: Jes Staley
Sent: Fri Jul 09 21:02:03 2010
Subject: Re:
what character would you like next
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jes Staley
wrote:
Maybe they're tracking u??
That was fun. Say hi to Snow White.
This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
Jeffrey Epstein
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to
and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments.
This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and conditions including on offers for the purchase
or sale of securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses, confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal
entity disclaimers, available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/emalil.
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00000951
EFTA00029432

=== Page 2 ===
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
Jeffrey Epstein
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to
and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments.
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00000952
EFTA00029433


c1: EFTA00027258
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027258.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: USDOJ-Office of Public Affairs <USDOJ-OfficeofPublicAffairs@public.govdelivery.com>
To:
Subject: STATEMENT FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM P. BARR ON THE DEATH OF JEFFREY
EPSTEIN
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 16:35:16 +0000
seal - centered header for gov delivery
The United States Department of Justice
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SATURDAY, AUGUST 10, 2019
STATEMENT FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM P.
BARR ON THE DEATH OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN
EFTA00027258

=== Page 2 ===
WASHINGTON - Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following
statement:
"I was appalled to learn that Jeffrey Epstein was found dead early this morning
from an apparent suicide while in federal custody. Mr. Epstein's death raises
serious questions that must be answered. In addition to the FBI's investigation, I
have consulted with the Inspector General who is opening an investigation into
the circumstances of Mr. Epstein's death."
###
AG
19-855
Do not reply to this message. If you have questions, please use the contacts in the
message or call the Office of Public Affairs at 202-514-2007.
Twi
Fac
You
Ins
Follow us:
the
oR
Tub
tax
This email was sent to
using GovDelivery, on behalf of U.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs - 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530 202-514-2007 TTY (866) 544-5309. GovDelivery may not use your subscription information for any other purposes. Click here to
unsubscribe
Department of Justice Privacy Policy I GovDelivery Privacy Policy
EFTA00027259


c1: EFTA00028119
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028119.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: Epstein Estate
Start Date: 2020-11-09 21:30:00 +0000
End Date: 2020-11-09 22:00:00 +0000
Location: Skype Meeting; Conference ID: 570 579 045;
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2020-11-09 16:22:32 +0000
Date Modified: 2020-11-09 16:22:32 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2020-11-09 16:01:01 +0000
Attendee: Weinstein, Marc A. <
EFTA00028119


c1: EFTA00028578
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028578.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
STATE
STATE
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
New York, New York 10007
May 21, 2021
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
MDC-Metropolitan Detention Center
Legal Department
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Enclosed is discovery pertinent to the following inmate:
Ghislaine Maxwell: 02879-509
Please allow her access to the materials enclosed.
Very truly yours,
AUDREY STRAUSS
United States Attorney
by:
Went me
Assistant United States Attorneys
Enclosure
EFTA00028578


c1: EFTA00027878
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027878.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Subject: RE: Final Voucher 10810414(1) prepared by a travel arranger is pending your review
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:44:58 +0000
Alex, regarding the Transient Occupancy Tax, LA County is tax exempt. I've contacted Doubletree by Hilton Santa Monica
for a refund for those charges. Thanks for your patience in this matter.
Subject: RE: Final Voucher 10810414(1) prepared by a travel arranger is pending your review
Unfortunately this is still incorrect. First, it has the nightly lodging costs listed as $248 when in fact it was $247 - see the
invoice, which is attached again. (Or please let me know if I'm supposed to be reimbursed for the maximum daily
allowance rather than the actual cost.) Also it still does not include the tax.
Please let me know when it is corrected and I will review it again.
From: etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 10:06
Subject: Final Voucher 10810414(1) prepared by a travel arranger is pending your review
Dear
Final voucher 10810414(1) has been prepared by your travel arranger and is ready for your review. Please log
into E2 Solutions to review the document.
Trip ID: 10810414
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name:
Purpose: R20NYS13179 - U.S. V. Epstein - Witness Interview
Destination: Santa Monica, CA, United States
Dates: 2019-11-13 - 2019-11-15
Current status: Pending Voucher Approval
Voucher total expenses: 1517.64
Estimated trip cost: 1583.95
EFTA00027878

=== Page 2 ===
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# V0012
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00027879


c1: EFTA00027583
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027583.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
Cc:
)"
)"
,
)"
Subject:
3500
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 20:15:22 +0000
Embedded: [EXTERNAL]
msg
Please add to
3500 and witness folder. Thanks!
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
EFTA00027583


c1: EFTA00027224
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027224.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. Department of Justice
Request for Financial Information Under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA)
Washington, D.C. 20530
(Authorization, Purchase Order and Receiving Report)
This form shall be used when requesting financial records of individuals and partnerships of five or fewer individuals under the RFPA.
1 Tracking Number:
2 Date Order Prepared:
3 USAO Number:
Section A - Authorization and Purchase Order
N/A
4 Name and Address of Financial Institution:
A.
Funding Certification &
Budget Official Signature
Funding Available
Date
Authorization:
B.
54-8113
Approving Official Signature
Date
5 Deliver Records To:
Send Completed USA-211 Form & Invoice To:
6 Return Date:
U.S. Attorney's Office SDNY
Budget / Fiscal Unit
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007
7 Remarks: Do not proceed with compliance if the total cost will exceed $ 500.00 without prior approval. To obtain approval, call the requestor listed in Item 8.
If invoicing for these services is expected to exceed 120 days, please notify the United States Attorney's Office immediately to ensure funds remain available
for payment. Please see the attached Important Notice for additional information on invoicing and other requirements for reimbursement.
8 Name of Requestor:
9 Telephone Number:
10 Date of request:
AUSA
Section B - Financial Institution Invoice
No Payment Shall Be Made Unless Expenses Are Itemized Below Or Set Forth On Your Attached Invoice.
11A Invoice Number:
Unit Price
Quantity
Amount
11B Tax ID Number:
Cost
Per
IIC Service(s)/Records Provided:
A. Searching and processing costs (clerical or technical personnel)
$22.00
Hour
B. Searching and processing costs (management/supervisory personnel)
$30.00
Hour
C. Searching and processing costs (computer support specialist)
$30.00
Hour
D. Reproduction Costs (Photocopying) **Note: Copy charges will be disallowed if
$0.25
Page
the information is stored electronically, unless the US Attorney's Office requests paper.
E. Reproduction Costs (Paper Copies of Microfiche: provide justification)
$0.25
Frame
F. Reproduction Costs (Duplicate Microfiche: provide justification)
$0.50
Microfiche
G. Storage Media Cost (e.g., Compact Disc, DVD, etc., at Actual Cost)
H. Transportation Costs (Direct Costs Only)
In Item #12, I certify that the services invoiced above were not performed relative to any corporate
accounts and pertain only to accounts of individuals and partnerships of five or fewer individuals.
12 Signature of Financial Institution Official:
13 Date Signed:
Total Amount Claimed
By Financial Institution
16 Disallowance
Section C - Receiving Report
(See Attached)
14 I certify that the articles and services listed were received:
15 Date Received:
17 Net to
Financial
Institution
18 Right to Financial Privacy Act Public Law 95-630
19 Signature of Approving Official:
(12 U.S.C. 3401-3422) Request Pursuant To: (Check One Only)
OBJECT
SECTION
CLASS
3404
Customer Authorization
2545
20 Funding Source
3405
Administrative Subpoena or Summons
2545
Accounting Code:
3406
Search Warrant
2545
Judicial Subpoena
Program
3407
2545
3408
Formal Written Request
2545
21 Other Accounting/Fund Information:
3413
Grand Jury Subpoena
2545
Program Code: N/A
Project Code: N/A
3414
Special Procedures
YREGDOC:
54-8113
2545
22 Remarks:
Call Number (if applicable):
OBL Month (YRMO):
Tax ID Number:
To the best of my knowledge. the financial records received, for which we are being billed, are those of an individual or partnership of five or fewer individuals.
FORM USA-211
FEB. 2014
Signature of United States Attorney's Office Representative
Date
EFTA00027224


c1: EFTA00029177
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029177.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE:
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 19:57:53 +0000
What 302s does she come up in other than
and
and what is the context?
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 2:03 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE:
One of the difficulties in answering this question is that we don't have the pros memo. Here's what I've been able to
learn from what we do have:
We do have the transcripts of their grand jury testimony (although not the AUSA preamble). She is not mentioned in the
introductory part of the agent's testimony where they are walking through the various targets and subjects of the
investigation. By contrast, Epstein,
and
are (pp. 5-6). In fact, she only comes up once in the
entire grand jury presentation, namely in the context of the agent's summary of how
met Epstein.
Specifically, the agent testifies as follows:
I'm sorry, the question you asked me was: How did they meet? They met by a friend of Mr. Epstein's. Jane Doe
Number One was working at Mar-a-Lago and a friend of Mr. Epstein's, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Would you like the spelling?
THE REPORTER: Yes, please.
THE WITNESS: G-H-I-S-L-A-I-N-E, Maxwell, who was a friend of Mr. Epstein, met Jane Doe Number One at
Mar-a-Lago and Jane Doe Number One soon after began working and providing massages for Mr. Epstein
The fact that she has to spell it strongly suggests the name also didn't come up during whatever preamble the AUSA
provided. But either way, that's it.
As you know, she is not mentioned in the NPA and, according the lawyer at OPR who is running the NPA investigation,
Maxwell does not come up much, if at all, in the documents they have reviewed in connection with that issue.
There were no federal search warrants, so there would be no applications in which target subjects would be identified.
There was a local search warrant, but we don't have a copy because we don't have the SDFL file and we haven't asked
Palm Beach county for theirs. Presumably we will get that at some point.
Maxwell was added to the caption of the FBI file at some point, and she does come up in some of the 302s (including the
and
nterviews in a manner we're now familiar with). That said, we have the FBI file,
including all of their 302s, and we plan to produce those.
I think the proposal to get the physical file from SDFL makes sense and is manageable. We'll have to work through how to
do that, but OPR has at least some of that material which we could get quickly and start with (including the pros memo),
and once we figure out how to get the rest, 24 boxes of material is a doable project.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 3:17 PM
EFTA00029177

=== Page 2 ===
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE:
Thanks - yes, having an understanding of how (if at all) Maxwell fits into the Florida evidence and investigation (beyond
just the simple view that she wasn't the focus) would be helpful.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 11:14 AM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE:
Asking the team to look into this. We don't have their pros memo (although OPR does and if we wanted to make a more
targeted ask, we could conceivably start with that). We do have the one (state) search warrant application for the Palm
Beach residence, team will check that now. Team is not aware of any other search warrant applications done as part of
the SDFL investigation, but will take a look to confirm. We also have the grand jury testimony and I'm asking team to
confirm that Maxwell was not mentioned in that testimony.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 10:55 AM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject:
Do you know, or can you find out, whether Maxwell was identified as a target / subject / target subject or whatever the
lingo may have been in any warrants or other materials from the SDFL case, to the extent we know?
Counsel to the Acting U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
EFTA00029178


c1: EFTA00028737
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028737.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 15:47:12 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
Thanks!
From:
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 11:14 AM
To:
Subject: RE: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN
TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Congrats, guys!
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 1:22 PM
Subject: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO
SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
OF JUSTICE QUI PRO TOTAL DONIMINA UNITED VILLING
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Southern District of New York
STATES
OF
GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Maxwell is Alleged to Have Facilitated, Participated in Acts of Abuse
Additionally Charged With Perjury in Connection With 2016 Depositions
-
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F.
Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI"), and Dermot Shea, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"),
announced that GHISLANE MAXWELL was arrested this morning and charged with enticing a minor to travel
to engage in criminal sexual activity, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity,
conspiracy to commit both of those offenses, and perjury in connection with a sworn deposition. The Indictment
unsealed today alleges that between at least in or about 1994 through 1997, MAXWELL and co-conspirator
Jeffrey Epstein exploited girls as young as 14, including by enticing them to travel and transporting them for the
EFTA00028737

=== Page 2 ===
purpose of engaging in illegal sex acts. As alleged, knowing that Epstein had a preference for young girls,
MAXWELL played a critical role in the grooming and abuse of minor victims that took place in locations
including New York, Florida, and New Mexico. In addition, as alleged, MAXWELL made several false
statements in sworn depositions in 2016. MAXWELL is expected to be presented this afternoon in the in federal
court in New Hampshire. This case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan.
Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: "As alleged, Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated, aided, and
participated in acts of sexual abuse of minors. Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, and then
delivered them into the trap that she and Jeffrey Epstein had set. She pretended to be a woman they could trust.
All the while, she was setting them up to be abused sexually by Epstein and, in some cases, Maxwell herself.
Today, after many years, Ghislaine Maxwell finally stands charged for her role in these crimes."
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: "Preserving the innocence of children is among the
most important responsibilities we carry as adults. Like Epstein, Ms. Maxwell chose to blatantly disregard the
law and her responsibility as an adult, using whatever means she had at her disposal to lure vulnerable youth into
behavior they should never have been exposed to, creating the potential for lasting harm. We know the quest for
justice has been met with great disappointment for the victims, and that reliving these events is traumatic. The
example set by the women involved has been a powerful one. They persevered against the rich and connected,
and they did so without a badge, a gun, or a subpoena - and they stood together. I have no doubt the bravery
exhibited by the women involved here has empowered others to speak up about the crimes of which they've been
subjected."
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said: "The heinous crimes these charges allege are, and always will
be abhorrent for the lasting trauma they inflict on victims. I commend our investigators, and law enforcement
partners, for their continuing commitment to bringing justice to the survivors of sexual assault, everywhere."
If you believe you are a victim of the sexual abuse perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein, please contact
the FBI at 1-800-CALL FBI, and reference this case.
According to the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From at least 1994 through at least 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and participated
in Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Jeffrey Epstein to recruit, groom, and
ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as
young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that their victims were in fact minors. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims,
MAXWELL and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states,
which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.
As alleged, MAXWELL enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways. For example,
MAXWELL attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, taking them to the movies or
taking them on shopping trips, and encouraging their interactions with Epstein. MAXWELL also acclimated
victims to Epstein's conduct simply by being present for victim interactions with Epstein, which put victims at
ease by providing the assurance and comfort of an adult woman who seemingly approved of Epstein's behavior.
Additionally, to make victims feel indebted to Epstein, MAXWELL would encourage victims to accept offers of
financial assistance from Epstein, including offers to pay for travel or educational expenses. MAXWELL also
normalized and facilitated sexual abuse by discussing sexual topics with victims, encouraging them to massage
Epstein, and undressing in front of a victim.
As MAXWELL and Epstein intended, these grooming behaviors left minor victims vulnerable and
susceptible to sexual abuse by Epstein. MAXWELL was then present for certain sexual encounters between
minor victims and Epstein, such as interactions where a minor victim was undressed, and ultimately MAXWELL
was present for sex acts perpetrated by Epstein on minor victims. That abuse included sexualized massages
EFTA00028738

=== Page 3 ===
during which a minor victim was fully or partially nude, as well as group sexualized massages of Epstein
involving a minor victim where MAXWELL was present.
As alleged, minor victims were subjected to sexual abuse that included, among other things, the touching
of a victim's breasts or genitals, placing a sex toy such a vibrator on a victim's genitals, directing a victim to
touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. MAXWELL and
Epstein's victims were groomed or abused at Epstein's residences in New York, Florida, and New Mexico, as
well as MAXWELL's residence in London, England.
Additionally, in 2016, while testifying under oath in a civil proceeding, MAXWELL repeatedly made
false statements, including about certain specific acts and events alleged in the Indictment.
*
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 58, is charged with one count of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal
sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of conspiracy to entice a minor to
travel to engage in illegal sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of
transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, which carries a maximum sentence of
10 years in prison, one count of conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual
activity, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and two counts of perjury, each of which
carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational
purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge.
Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI and the NYPD.
This case is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys
, and
are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
20-138
###
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PRESS OFFICE
AT (212) 637-2600.
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter SDNY website YouTube
[1]
As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein,
constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent
EFTA00028739

=== Page 4 ===
unless and until proven guilty.
EFTA00028740


c1: EFTA00027645
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027645.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)"
)"
Subject: Maxwell trial fact witness travel -
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 17:13:29 +0000
Attachments:
-_Fact_Witness_Travel_Request_(trial).docx
Hi
Attached please find a fact witness travel request for our fist witness in the Maxwell trial
He'll be flying in
from California, so he'll need to travel to NY on 11/27 in order to meet with me on 11/28. I expect he'll testify on 11/29,
but he could possible bleed over into 11/30 if we get tied up in jury selection issues, so I'd like to schedule his flight out of
NY for the evening of 11/30. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you, as always, for your help.
EFTA00027645


c1: EFTA00028041
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028041.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Tags for US V. Epstein Relativity Database
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:44:47 +0000
Hi
Thanks for all of your help. Can you please (1) remove the responsiveness review field; and (2) create the following
additional tags:
3600
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9:23 AM
To:
Cc:
is
is
Subject: RE: Tags for US V. Epstein Relativity Database
Hi
When you rename this folder, could you please also break the folder into review batches of 500-documents each, and
assign a third to me, a third to
and a third to
?
Thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 6:00 PM
To:
Cc:
i
is
;
Subject: RE: Tags for US V. Epstein Relativity Database
Hi
Thanks very much for the quick response. We would like all tags in one field with check boxes, please. We want to be
able to tag each document with multiple tags if appropriate.
EFTA00028041

=== Page 2 ===
Also, in the same "US V Epstein" database, would it be possible to please rename the folder entitled "Florida Investigation
FOIA Files_2" to "FBI Files from Florida Office"? The new title will help us understand what is actually in that folder.
Thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 8:46 AM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Tags for US V. Epstein Relativity Database
Good Morning,
Do you want all of these tags in one field on in several fields? Also do you want these tags in both of the Epstein Relativity
databases?
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 6:04 PM
To:
Cc:
is
>;
Subject: Tags for US V. Epstein Relativity Database
Hi
We would like to use several tags as we conduct our review of documents in the "US V Epstein" database on Relativity.
For that database, would you please help us create the below tags?
Reviewed
Witness Statement
Produce As Is
Produce With Redactions
Produce As Confidential
Produce As Highly Confidential
Work Product (Do Not Produce)
Potential Brady
Hot Doc
For Further Review
Tech Issue
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Thanks very much,
EFTA00028042

=== Page 3 ===
EFTA00028043


c1: EFTA00029601
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029601.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Page 1 of 5
CURRICULUM VITAE
FBI Expert Witness
OF
OF * DEPART
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Computer Analysis Response Team
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
PHONE:
FAX:
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
May 2005 - present
Computer Forensic Examiner
New York Field Office
Federal Bureau of Investigation
New York, New York
As a forensic computer examiner in a laboratory, examine physical evidence under a
documented quality assurance program that includes annual proficiency testing,
technical/peer and administrative reviews and adherence to standard operating
procedures.
Conduct forensic examinations on digital evidence and perform search and seizure
operations.
Jan 2001- May 2005
Senior Technical Consultant
Viecore, Inc.
1111 MacArthur Blvd.
Mahwah, NJ
Duties included programming in many different computer languages, data base
administration, quality assurance management and project management. Applications
mainly focused on Integrated Voice Response systems (IVR), web applications, and on-
line banking.
July 1997 - Jan 2001
Programmer
Erisco, Inc.
Union, NJ
Maintained and coded systems to build Facets product using Perl (Both NT and UNIX
platforms). Served as PVCS administrator for entire Facets product. Designated build team
leader after making significant improvements to build process.
April 1992 - July 1997
Senior Environmental Health Specialist
Bergen County Health Department
Paramus, NJ
Conducted environmental investigations/inspections and hazardous materials emergency
response. Coordinated enforcement efforts with NJ State Department of Environmental
Protection. Designed and implemented entire database system utilized by Environmental
Division. Designed subsequent database system for Dental Health Division upon request
of Department Director.
3503-001
Page 1 of 5
EFTA00029601

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2 of 5
EDUCATION
Jan 2015 - Dec 2019 John Jay College of Criminal Justice
New York, NY
Masters in Digital Forensics and Cyber Security
Sept 1996 - June 1998 The Chubb Institute
Parsippany, NJ
Diploma in Computer Programming
Sept 1982 - May 1986
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA
Bachelor of Science in Business and Computer Science
FORENSIC EXAMINATION / TESTIMONY EXPERIENCE
Analyzed over 1000 pieces of computer media in support of over 300 cases since 2005. Participated in the
execution of over 200 search warrants/search and seizure operations, and field examinations. Examinations have
supported expert testimony in Federal Court, Southern District of NY and Eastern District of NY.
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
Sept 2005
Network + Certification, Northwest Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory,
Portland, OR (5 days)
Oct 2005
Basic Data Recovery and Analysis. Intermountain West Regional Computer Forensic
Laboratory, Salt Lake City, UT (5 days)
Nov 2005
FTK Boot Camp, Access Data, Hamilton, NJ. (3 days)
Jan 2006
A+ Certification, Intermountain West Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory,
Salt Lake City, UT (10 days)
Feb 2006
Advanced Windows Forensics, Rocky Mountain Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory,
Centennial, CO (3 days)
April 2006
Basic Windows Certification Training Practicals, Justice Training Facility, Fredericksburg,
VA (5 days)
Feb 2007
Microsoft Advanced Forensics, Rocky Mountain RCFL, Denver, CO (5 days)
June 2007
Instructor Development Course, San Diego RCFL, San Diego, CA (5 days)
Aug 2007
RAID, FBI BWI office, Linthicum, MD (4 days)
Oct 2007
CART DES administrator, FBI BWI office, Linthicum, MD (3 days)
Dec 2007
Cell Phone/ PDA Analysis, San Diego RCFL, San Diego, CA (4 days)
Jan 2008
Access Data Internet Forensics, Rocky Mountain RCFL, Denver, CO (3 days)
Feb 2008
Encase Intermediate Forensics, FBI Tampa Division, Tampa, FL (4 days)
Jan 2009
Microsoft Windows Vista Advanced System Forensics, Chicago, IL (3 days)
3503-001
Page 2 of 5
EFTA00029602

=== Page 3 ===
Page 3 of 5
Feb 2009
Cellebrite/Secureview Cell Phone Forensics, Salt Lake City, UT (4 days)
April 2009
Forward Discovery Macintosh Forensics, Menlo Park, CA (5 days)
May 2009
XRY Mobile Phone Examination, Kansas City, MO (2 days)
March 2010
EnCase Internet Processing, Chicago, IL (3 days)
March 2010
Virtual Forensics for Linux, Denver, CO (5 days)
August 2010
Live Capture, Baltimore, MD (3 days)
December 2010
Forensic Tool Kit 3, Dallas, TX (3 days)
March 2011
Advanced FTK Lab, Baltimore, MD (3 days)
June 2011
Linux Command Line, Stafford, VA (3 days)
April 2012
Windows 7 Artifacts, FBI BWI office, Linthicum, MD (3 days)
September 2012
FTK III for Mac, San Diego RCFL, San Diego, CA (3 days)
May 2014
Blacklight, NYPD Academy, New York, NY (2 days)
May 2014
OS Artifacts, FBI BWI office, Linthicum, MD (3 days)
May 2016
International Association of Computer Investigative Specialist (IACIS) Windows Forensic
Examiner, Orlando, FL (4 days)
March 2018
Cellebrite Certified Operator & Cellebrite Certified Physical Analyst, Austin, TX (5 days)
April 2018
Macintosh Forensics, Black Bag, San Diego, CA (5 days)
March 2019
BERLA Vehicle Forensics, BERLA, Annapolis, MD (5 days)
CERTIFICATIONS & AWARDS
February 2006
A+ Certification - CompTIA
September 2006
Net+ Certification - CompTIA
October 2006
FBI CART Basic Wintel Forensic Examiner - Federal Bureau of Investigation
June 2007
FBI Certified Instructor - Federal Bureau of Investigation
December 2007
PDA/Cell Phone Forensic Examiner - Federal Bureau of Investigation
February 2008
EnCase Certification - Federal Bureau of Investigation
April 2009
Macintosh Forensic Examiner - Federal Bureau of Investigation
August 2010
Senior Forensic Examiner - Federal Bureau of Investigation
PRESENTATIONS
September 2006
FBI CART Moot Court Training, Phoenix, AZ
3503-001
Page 3 of 5
EFTA00029603

=== Page 4 ===
Page 4 of 5
August 2008
FBI CART Senior Moot Court Training, San Diego, CA
October 2008
Instructor, ImageScan training, Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, Paramus, NJ
June 2009
Instructor, ImageScan training, NYPD Computer Crimes Unit, NY, NY
July 2009
Instructor, ImageScan training, NYPD Computer Crimes Unit, NY, NY
April 2010
Infraguard Computer Forensics Show, NY, NY
August 2010
Session Chair, International Conference on Cyber Security, Fordham University, NY, NY
August 2010
Instructor, ImageScan training, NY, NY
January 2012
Speaker, International Conference on Cyber Security, Fordham University, NY, NY
August 2013
Speaker, International Conference on Cyber Security, Fordham University, NY, NY
January 2015
Speaker, International Conference on Cyber Security, Fordham University, NY, NY
June 2015
Instructor, DExT Practicals Class, Stafford, VA
January 2016
Instructor, DExT Practicals Class, Stafford, VA
August 2016
Speaker, International Conference on Cyber Security, Fordham University, NY, NY
August 2016
Instructor, DExT Practicals Class, Stafford, VA
October 2016
Instructor, DExT Practicals Class, Stafford, VA
March 2017
Instructor, DExT Practicals Class, Stafford, VA
August 2017
Instructor, DExT Practicals Class, Stafford, VA
January 2018
Speaker, International Conference on Cyber Security, Fordham University, NY, NY
March 2018
Instructor, Digital Investigations for Prosecutors and Judges, Accra, Ghana
September 2018
Instructor, Digital Evidence and Moot Court, Accra, Ghana
July 2018
Instructor, DExT Practicals Class, Linthicum, MD
October 2018
Instructor, Digital Forensic Examiner I Class, Stafford, VA
March 2019
Instructor, DExT Practicals Class, Linthicum, MD
June 2019
Instructor, Digital Forensic Examiner OS Class, Stafford, VA
June 2019
Instructor, Mobile Forensics and Bitcoin, Accra, Ghana
November 2019
Instructor, Digital Investigations for Prosecutors, Cairo, Egypt
August 2020
FBI CART Moot Court Training, Williamsburg, VA
March 2021
Instructor, DExT Practicals Class, Linthicum, MD
May 2021
FBI CART Moot Court Training, Orlando, FL
3503-001
Page 4 of 5
EFTA00029604

=== Page 5 ===
Page 5 of 5
June 2021
Instructor, Incident Response and Acquisition Analysis Class, Stafford, VA
July 2021
Instructor, DExT Practicals Class, Stafford, VA
3503-001
Page 5 of 5
EFTA00029605


c1: EFTA00029260
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029260.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Jill Shellow
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc: Andrew Patel
(USANYS)"
X
"Donald Yannella
(
)"
Subject: Re: Johnny Contreras - Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Death
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:57:54 +0000
Importance: Normal
Got it. See you there.
Jill R. Shellow, Esq.
Law Offices of Jill Shellow
80 Broad Street, Suite 1900
New York, NY 10004
Please excuse all typos and auto correct
On Sep 3, 2019, at 9:57 AM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
Hi Andy, Jill, and Don,
Change of plans this morning, we will be at
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 5:54 PM
To: Andrew Patel
>; Jill Shellow'
Cc:
(USANYS)
>; ; Donald Yannella
(
Subject: RE: Johnny Contreras - Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Death
Got it, thanks. Same to you and see you next week.
From: Andrew Patel
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 4:31 PM
To:
(USANYS)
>; Jill Shellow'
Cc:
(USANYS)
>; ; Donald Yannella
(
>; ; Andrew Patel
Subject: RE: Johnny Contreras - Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Death
,
Don Yannella, who is actually Mr. Contreras' lead counsel, will be joining us as well.
Have a good week and weekend.
EFTA00029260

=== Page 2 ===
Andy
Andrew G. Patel
Attorney at Law
80 Broad Street, Suite 1900
New York, NY 10004
Tel:
Fax:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is legally privileged. The information it contains is confidential information and is intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please notify me immediately by telephone at
and by return e-mail, and delete all copies of
the message from your computer. Thank you.
From:
(USANYS) [mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 4:00 PM
To: Andrew Patel; Jill Shellow'
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Johnny Contreras - Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Death
Hi Andy and Jill,
We are confirmed for 9/3 at 10 am at 1 St. Andrews. See you then.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 4:35 PM
To: 'Andrew Patel'
>; 'Jill Shellow"
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Johnny Contreras - Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Death
Hi Andy/Jill,
We understand that Mr. Contreras is willing to meet with us in a proffer session, and that the proffer would be limited
only to the information he has regarding Mr. Epstein's death. If so, when would be convenient to meet? Let us know if
you'd like to discuss anything by phone. Thanks.
From: Andrew Patel
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 4:20 PM
To:
(USANYE)
is
(USANYE)
is
(USANYE)
Cc: 'Donald Yannella
(
)'
>; 'Jill Shellow'
V.
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Johnny Contreras - Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Death
Many thanks. Talk to you soon.
EFTA00029261

=== Page 3 ===
Andy
Andrew G. Patel
Attorney at Law
80 Broad Street, Suite 1900
New York, NY 10004
Tel:
Fax:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is legally privileged. The information it contains is confidential information and is intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please notify me immediately by telephone at
and by return e-mail, and delete all copies of
the message from your computer. Thank you.
From:
(USANYE) [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 4:16 PM
To: Andrew Patel;
(USANYE);
(USANYE)
Cc: Donald Yannella (
); 'Jill Shellow';
(USANYS);
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Johnny Contreras - Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Death
Hi Andy:
I've spoken with my wonderful former colleagues in SDNY who are handling the investigation, and who are cc'd here. I
passed along the information you and Jill provided to us yesterday, and they will reach out to you directly to set up a
proffer on this topic.
Thanks, and best,
From: Andrew Patel
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 3:15 PM
To:
(USANYE)
is
(USANYE)
is
(USANYE)
Cc: Donald Yannella
>; 'Jill Shellow'
is
Andrew Patel
Subject: Johnny Contreras - Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Death
Dear
:
This email concerns the investigation into the death of Jeffrey Epstein in
the MCC. We realize that it is unlikely your office is involved, but we
thought that we should inform the government of the following so you can
take whatever action you believe is appropriate.
EFTA00029262

=== Page 4 ===
Jhonny Contreras was recently returned to the SHU in the MCC. At the
time of Mr. Epstein's death, it is my understanding that Mr. Contreras was
housed in a cell on the same tier and across the hall from Mr. Epstein's
cell. Mr. Contreras did not see Mr. Epstein hang himself, but he would be
willing to speak to investigators, in the presence of counsel, about his
observations.
Please let us know if there is anything further we should do to follow-up.
Andy
Andrew G. Patel
Attorney at Law
80 Broad Street, Suite 1900
New York, NY 10004
Tel:
Fax:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is legally privileged. The information it contains is confidential information and is intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please notify me immediately by telephone at
and by return e-mail, and delete all copies of
the message from your computer. Thank you.
EFTA00029263


c1: EFTA00028420
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028420.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Re: Subpoena and Request for Emails ((Out of Office))
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 01:43:17 +0000
I will be out of the office on Friday, July 12. If you need immediate assistance, please contact Supervisory
Attorney
Legal Assistant
, or call the institution at
and ask for the
Operations Lieutenant or the Institution Duty Officer. Thank you.
)"
07/11/19 21:43
and
,
Attached please find a subpoena for recordings of Jeffrey Epstein's phone calls, excluding any attorney calls.
In addition to the materials requested in the enclosed subpoena, please accept our written request for the e-mail
correspondence of inmate Jeffrey Epstein (76318-054) from July 6, 2019 through July 11, 2019 - excluding any
correspondence between Epstein and the following attorneys: Marc Fernich (
), Martin
Weinberg
(
), and Reid Weingarten
(
).
As you can see on the subpoena, we have set the return date for tomorrow (July 12, 2019). We would be very
grateful if we could receive the requested materials as soon as possible. As always, please feel free to call
,
,
or me with any questions or concerns.
Thanks very much,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
<mailto:
EFTA00028420


c1: EFTA00028387
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028387.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
Subject: FW: Search Warrant Application
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 19:58:33 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 2019.07.05_New_York_Residence_SW.pdf
Here's what I sent to Judge Moses, on the off chance that's helpful in connection with this call.
From:
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 12:41 PM
To: 'moses_nysdchambers@nysd.uscourts.gov' <moses_nysdchambers@nysd.uscourts.gov>
Subject: Search Warrant Application
Dear Judge Moses:
With apologies for the inconvenience during the Court holiday, attached is a search warrant application. My cell phone
number is
if there are any questions.
Respectfully,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00028387


c1: EFTA00028324
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028324.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: **UPDATE** RE: Requests
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:45:44 +0000
Attachments: QTRLY_SHU_Slides-_PSYC_ONLY.pptx
Attached is the most recently updated Suicide Prevention slide show the Chief Psychologist uses during SHU training. It is
dated 6/11/13. This is the slide show that is still being used during quarterly SHU training.
I will continue to send additional docs as I obtain them.
>>
> 6/26/2020 10:59 AM >>>
Thank you very much for this extremely clear and helpful email. Just a few follow-up points:
-
For the "Hot List" (or the high risk list), it is dated August 30, 2019, which is after the events in question. Do you
have these from the period of June 26, 2019 through August 10, 2019?
-
You are still working on getting us the following:
Finalized versions of Program Statements 5511.08 and 5500.13;
An updated suicide prevention PowerPoint presentation; and
Watch call tracking sheets
-
Finally, with respect to our request for all SROs during the time of
assignment to the SHU, that seems
excessively burdensome. Rather, if possible, can you locate the SROs related to Epstein only?
Is there something called a "SHU report" that is different from an SRO?
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: FW: Requests
All,
I hope my responses below serve to clear up some of the issues you had with the documentation that was provided. I
continue to work to obtain the missing items and will send them as I receive any additional documents. Please let me know
if you have further questions and I'll be happy to address anything that is still unclear.
Many of the requests made, such as ICT agenda, cellmate policies and SHU policies are not one-stop-shops.
These issues are covered in a number of different policies, therefore I tried to include all policies that
reference those topics.
1. We received unsigned Word versions of Program Statements 5511.08 and 5500.13. Are there finalized versions?
Executive Assistant Lee Plourde handles the finalizing of the supplements. He's on leave and will
address this upon his return on Monday, June 29, 2020.
2. Why were we given the BOP Correctional Services Procedures Manual? Which of our requests is this responsive to?
Section 310 of this policy covers inmate accountability in the SHU. You requested 5511.08 and this
section in the CSPM overlaps some of those same policies.
EFTA00028324

=== Page 2 ===
3. Why were we given the BOP Suicide Prevention Program Statement? Which of our requests is this responsive to?
This policy covers staff training requirements for ICT and Quarterly SHU training. I included the
policy because it directly correlated with other requests.
4. We were also given a Powerpoint entitled Suicide Prevention for Inmates. Which of our requests is this responsive
to? When is this document from? The slide show is the Psychology portion of the SHU Training you
requested. It is dated 1/2/2014. I have requested an updated version that would have been used
more closely to the time of
ssignment to SHU. I'm just waiting for Psychology staff to
provide me whatever it is they used at that time.
5. We were provided a document titled Introduction to Correctional Techniques from January 2020. Which of our
requests is this responsive to? Is it the MCC institutional familiarization training outline? If so, we would request
one from a time when the defendants were actively employed at MCC (so before August 2019). This is the
Institutional Familiarization (IF) outline you requested. It hasn't been called IF for a few years. It is
now Introduction to Correctional Techniques (ICT). An earlier version is attached here.
6. We were provided with an undated slide presentation about the MCC SHU. Which of our requests is this responsive
to? When is this document from? The slide show was created 1/2/2014 as a part of quarterly SHU
training. The quarterly SHU training is primarily conducted through the BOP's online training
platform that is a self-guided course that covers a number of topics related to SHU. The official SHU
training course is not something I can send or save due to the nature of the course being automated
by the training platform and not a hard file.
7. The BOP Code of Ethics is highlighted below. Which document is this? Program Statement 3420.11 is the
Standards of Employee Conduct, which covers the dos and don'ts of employment in the BOP. I've
attached the DOJ Ethics Handbook here. If there is something specific you're looking for, please let
me know.
8. We received digital lieutenant's logs. Is there also a hard copy book? There is no hard copy book of these
logs. The logs are saved to a shared folder at the end of each shift. Although I have worked at
places that print each log, the Lieutenant's here at NYM reported that that is not the practice here.
The LTs here email their logs to the executive staff at the conclusion of each 24 hour period for
review purposes. Thus, eliminating a hard copy record system.
9. We were provided with a document called "SHU Logs MW" and a document called "SHU Logs." Can we confirm
what these are? Our requests were for SHU Watch Call Logs and SHU Control Center Logs. Those are the
digital log books from SHU for the Evening and Morning Watch shifts during the requested time
period. I am working on obtaining the actual Watch Call tracking sheets from the main Control
Center at MCC which is something different. However, the officer should be logging their watch calls
into the digital log book every 30 minutes between 6a - 6p each day.
10. Which document contains the BOP and MCC policy on SHU quarterly training, which is highlighted below as having
been provided? PS 5270.11 as well as the Suicide Prevention policy covers the SHU quarterly training
requirement. There is not a separate policy for that.
11. We asked for P.S. 5270.10, but got P.S. 5270.11. Was P.S. 5270.10 provided to us in error? Or was our request
incorrect? 5270.10 does not exist. 5270.11 is the policy covering SHU.
12. Which document contains the BOP and MCC policy on cellmates? I am not aware of any such policy and have
struggled to find even a mention of it in the policies I've reviewed. I will continue to search for a
policy that references cellmate assignments.
13. In the second email, there is a document called "Hot Lists" dated August 30, 2019. Which of our requests is this
responsive to? The "Hot List" is the high risk list. Any inmate on that list who goes to SHU requires
immediate notification to Psychology. This is the only "high risk" list the BOP has and I provided it in
response to your request for "All High Risk Lists reviewed during weekly SHU meetings.
14. In the second email,
mentioned that most of the control center paperwork was seized by FBI and/or OIG.
Do you or FBI have that paperwork? Has it been provided to us?
15. Finally, what is the status of the remaining requests? As I continue to work from home, I have not
personally been able to physically search for the Watch Call sheets. As I previously mentioned,
those logs were reportedly seized early on in this investigation. I continue to follow up on this. With
regard to the SROs, those reviews are only electronically available for inmates who are currently in
SHU and only for the period of their most recent admission to SHU. SROs, assuming they were
completed, would then be printed and filed in the inmate's central file. I am currently trying to
figure out where Epstein's file is to see if any SROs are in it. If you really want ALL SROs for the
period of
assignment to SHU, that will be an extremely lengthy process of tracking down
inmate files, many of whom have released from the BOP or been transferred to any number of
institutions across the country, and then requesting any SROs from the specified period of time that
are contained in those files be scanned to us. I'm guessing Epstein's file was taken along with all of
the other documentation shortly after his death, but I have not confirmed that yet.
EFTA00028325

=== Page 3 ===
Special Investigative Agent
MCC New York
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007
Special Investigative Agent
MCC New York
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007
06/25/20 12:35 PM
Can you please address the questions/discrepancies noted below. Much appreciated.
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 12:30 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Requests
Some follow up questions related to these materials:
1. We received unsigned Word versions of Program Statements 5511.08 and 5500.13. Are there finalized versions?
2. Why were we given the BOP Correctional Services Procedures Manual? Which of our requests is this responsive to?
3. Why were we given the BOP Suicide Prevention Program Statement? Which of our requests is this responsive to?
4. We were also given a Powerpoint entitled Suicide Prevention for Inmates. Which of our requests is this responsive
to? When is this document from?
5. We were provided a document titled Introduction to Correctional Techniques from January 2020. Which of our
requests is this responsive to? Is it the MCC institutional familiarization training outline? If so, we would request
one from a time when the defendants were actively employed at MCC (so before August 2019).
6. We were provided with an undated slide presentation about the MCC SHU. Which of our requests is this responsive
to? When is this document from?
7. The BOP Code of Ethics is highlighted below. Which document is this?
8. We received digital lieutenant's logs. Is there also a hard copy book?
9. We were provided with a document called "SHU Logs MW" and a document called "SHU Logs." Can we confirm
what these are? Our requests were for SHU Watch Call Logs and SHU Control Center Logs.
10. Which document contains the BOP and MCC policy on SHU quarterly training, which is highlighted below as having
been provided?
11. We asked for P.S. 5270.10, but got P.S. 5270.11. Was P.S. 5270.10 provided to us in error? Or was our request
incorrect?
12. Which document contains the BOP and MCC policy on cellmates?
13. In the second email, there is a document called "Hot Lists" dated August 30, 2019. Which of our requests is this
responsive to?
14. In the second email,
mentioned that most of the control center paperwork was seized by FBI and/or OIG. Do
you or FBI have that paperwork? Has it been provided to us?
EFTA00028326

=== Page 4 ===
15. Finally, what is the status of the remaining requests?
Please work on this as quickly as you can. Thanks!
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:59 PM
To:
is
Cc:
Subject: FW: Requests
fyi
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:53 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Requests
I've attached all the documentation I have pertaining to the below request. I am waiting for a few things from HR and
Psychology but wanted to send you what I have right now. I highlighted the items below that are attached in this email.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Special Investigative Agent
MCC New York
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007
06/12/20 1:54 PM
Hi
Hope you and fam have been well, as well as MCC staff.
Can you please provide the following information concerning the Epstein suicide investigation:
The BOP and MCC Employee Code of Conduct, Code of Ethics, and corresponding employee acknowledgement
forms for Defendant Noel.
The MCC institutional familiarization training outline.
The BOP and MCC policy on cellmates and local Institutional Supplement on Special Housing Unit Regulations,
including Institutional Supplement/Program Statement Number P.S. NYM 5270.10.
The BOP and MCC policy on SHU quarterly training.
The Inmate Accountability Institutional Supplement/Program Statement, Number I.S. NYM 5511.08.
The Security Inspections Institutional Supplement/Program Statement, Number I.S. NYM 5500.13.
SHU Watch Call Logs from August 9, 2019 and August 10, 2019.
All SHU Watch Call Logs completed during Defendant
assignment to the SHU post which began on June 26,
2019.
All SHU Control Center Logs completed during Defendant
assignment to the SHU post which began on June
26, 2019.
All SHU Operations Lieutenant Log Books completed during Defendant
assignment to the SHU post which
began on June 26, 2019.
EFTA00028327

=== Page 5 ===
All High Risk Lists reviewed during weekly SHU meetings during Defendant
assignment to the SHU post which
began on June 26, 2019.
All SHU reports and SRO reviews completed by the SHU Lieutenant during Defendant
assignment to the SHU
post which began on June 26, 2019.
Many thx!
EFTA00028328


c1: EFTA00028483
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028483.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Final Voucher 10416822-1(1) approved by
, now awaiting further approval
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 21:18:20 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Final voucher 10416822-1(1) has been approved by
now awaiting further approval.
Trip ID: 10416822-1
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name:
Purpose: R19NYS13654 - U.S. V. Epstein (2018R01618) - Victim Interviews
Destination: West Palm Beach, FL, United States
Dates: 2019-07-11 - 2019-07-12
Current status: Pending Voucher Approval
Voucher total expenses: 779.97
Estimated trip cost: 1050.66
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# V0010
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00028483


c1: EFTA00028745
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028745.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:38:46 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
Thanks!
From
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 1:47 PM
To:
Subject: FW: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN
TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Great stuff, good luck!!
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 1:22 PM
Subject: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO
SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
UNITED QUI PRO DOMINA JUSTITIA OF SOFFICE JESTICE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Southern District of New York
STATES
GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Maxwell is Alleged to Have Facilitated, Participated in Acts of Abuse
Additionally Charged With Perjury in Connection With 2016 Depositions
-
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F.
Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI"), and Dermot Shea, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"),
announced that GHISLANE MAXWELL was arrested this morning and charged with enticing a minor to travel
to engage in criminal sexual activity, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity,
conspiracy to commit both of those offenses, and perjury in connection with a sworn deposition. The Indictment
unsealed today alleges that between at least in or about 1994 through 1997, MAXWELL and co-conspirator
Jeffrey Epstein exploited girls as young as 14, including by enticing them to travel and transporting them for the
purpose of engaging in illegal sex acts. As alleged, knowing that Epstein had a preference for young girls,
EFTA00028745

=== Page 2 ===
MAXWELL played a critical role in the grooming and abuse of minor victims that took place in locations
including New York, Florida, and New Mexico. In addition, as alleged, MAXWELL made several false
statements in sworn depositions in 2016. MAXWELL is expected to be presented this afternoon in the in federal
court in New Hampshire. This case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan.
Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: "As alleged, Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated, aided, and
participated in acts of sexual abuse of minors. Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, and then
delivered them into the trap that she and Jeffrey Epstein had set. She pretended to be a woman they could trust.
All the while, she was setting them up to be abused sexually by Epstein and, in some cases, Maxwell herself.
Today, after many years, Ghislaine Maxwell finally stands charged for her role in these crimes."
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: "Preserving the innocence of children is among the
most important responsibilities we carry as adults. Like Epstein, Ms. Maxwell chose to blatantly disregard the
law and her responsibility as an adult, using whatever means she had at her disposal to lure vulnerable youth into
behavior they should never have been exposed to, creating the potential for lasting harm. We know the quest for
justice has been met with great disappointment for the victims, and that reliving these events is traumatic. The
example set by the women involved has been a powerful one. They persevered against the rich and connected,
and they did so without a badge, a gun, or a subpoena - and they stood together. I have no doubt the bravery
exhibited by the women involved here has empowered others to speak up about the crimes of which they've been
subjected."
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said: "The heinous crimes these charges allege are, and always will
be abhorrent for the lasting trauma they inflict on victims. I commend our investigators, and law enforcement
partners, for their continuing commitment to bringing justice to the survivors of sexual assault, everywhere."
If you believe you are a victim of the sexual abuse perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein, please contact
the FBI at 1-800-CALL FBI, and reference this case.
According to the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From at least 1994 through at least 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and participated
in Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Jeffrey Epstein to recruit, groom, and
ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as
young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that their victims were in fact minors. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims,
MAXWELL and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states,
which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.
As alleged, MAXWELL enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways. For example,
MAXWELL attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, taking them to the movies or
taking them on shopping trips, and encouraging their interactions with Epstein. MAXWELL also acclimated
victims to Epstein's conduct simply by being present for victim interactions with Epstein, which put victims at
ease by providing the assurance and comfort of an adult woman who seemingly approved of Epstein's behavior.
Additionally, to make victims feel indebted to Epstein, MAXWELL would encourage victims to accept offers of
financial assistance from Epstein, including offers to pay for travel or educational expenses. MAXWELL also
normalized and facilitated sexual abuse by discussing sexual topics with victims, encouraging them to massage
Epstein, and undressing in front of a victim.
As MAXWELL and Epstein intended, these grooming behaviors left minor victims vulnerable and
susceptible to sexual abuse by Epstein. MAXWELL was then present for certain sexual encounters between
minor victims and Epstein, such as interactions where a minor victim was undressed, and ultimately MAXWELL
was present for sex acts perpetrated by Epstein on minor victims. That abuse included sexualized massages
during which a minor victim was fully or partially nude, as well as group sexualized massages of Epstein
involving a minor victim where MAXWELL was present.
EFTA00028746

=== Page 3 ===
As alleged, minor victims were subjected to sexual abuse that included, among other things, the touching
of a victim's breasts or genitals, placing a sex toy such a vibrator on a victim's genitals, directing a victim to
touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. MAXWELL and
Epstein's victims were groomed or abused at Epstein's residences in New York, Florida, and New Mexico, as
well as MAXWELL's residence in London, England.
Additionally, in 2016, while testifying under oath in a civil proceeding, MAXWELL repeatedly made
false statements, including about certain specific acts and events alleged in the Indictment.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 58, is charged with one count of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal
sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of conspiracy to entice a minor to
travel to engage in illegal sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of
transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, which carries a maximum sentence of
10 years in prison, one count of conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual
activity, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and two counts of perjury, each of which
carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational
purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge.
Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI and the NYPD.
This case is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys
, and
are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
20-138
###
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PRESS OFFICE
AT (212) 637-2600.
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter SDNY website YouTube
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein,
constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
EFTA00028747


c1: EFTA00028033
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028033.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject:
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 21:51:31 +0000
Attachments: 2021.07.28_Maxwell_Discovery_Letter.pdf
Here's the relevant discovery letter. The index referenced in the letter was in the production, and the entry in the index is:
(U//FOUO) 1 BOUND BLACK ADDRESS BOOK AND 2 STAPLED HANDWRITTEN SET OF DOCUMENTS ON YELLOW LEGAL PAD
PAPER
EFTA00028033


c1: EFTA00027952
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027952.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc: Clara Moran
Subject: Continued investigation into possible collaborators of Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:04:44 +0000
Attachments: 9-17-19_Letter_to_AUSA
re_Epstein.pdf
Ms.
Please see the attached correspondence from Chief Deputy Attorney General Clara Moran.
You can access the materials referenced in the letter by following this link and entering this password:
NMAG files
Password (without quotes) - "7e4DzyfvYC"
Note that this link will expire on October 16, 2019.
A CD containing this correspondence and the attached materials will also be arriving shortly via U.S. Mail.
Have a good day.
Assistant Attorney General
Cell:
EFTA00027952


c1: EFTA00028820
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028820.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
)"
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
(USANYS)"
,
)"
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:35:52 +0000
Thanks
These look great. One quick question, on documents in native format (excel files) is there a confidential
stamp? I've checked and it seems the answer is no but I just want to be sure that I'm not missing anything.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 11:20 AM
To:
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS)
>;
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
The documents should now be available for review. Please let me know if there are any questions.
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 9:11 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS)
is
;
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
These documents are not supposed to be privileged reviewed. The only documents that need to be privilege reviewed
are the electronic search warrant returns.
Thanks,
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 9:05 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
V.
(USANYS)
is
)
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
The data is probably secured for privilege review. Please let me know if these documents are not supposed to be
privileged reviewed.
Thank you.
EFTA00028820

=== Page 2 ===
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 5:39 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
V.
(USANYS)
is
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Hey
When I click on each of those links I'm brought to a Relativity page with no data. Am I doing something wrong?
Thanks,
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:32 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
>;
(USANYS)
>;
)
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
The production of the documents has been completed. The below are links to the production for you to review:
Deutsche Bank - https://d1pe.nss.pae.com/Relativity/go?id=1420850-2343058
JP Morgan - https://d1pe.nss.pae.com/Relativity/go?id=1420850-2343059
Please review the documents and let me know if anything needs to be adjusted with the production.
Thank you.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 10:26 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
>;
(USANYS)
is
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
1. Yes, we want to mark all of them confidential
2.
We are working on that.
3. I suppose database load files? We want to retain the files as they are currently formatted as best we can.
4. That won't be an issue. I don't think we will be searching through them; the purpose is just to be able to stamp
them.
Thanks!
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 10:10 AM
EFTA00028821

=== Page 3 ===
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
>;
(USANYS)
>;
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
I know you want to produce these documents can you please tell me the following:
1. Will you placing a Confidential stamp on these documents?
2. What bates number do you wish to use on the documents?
3. How do you want to produce the documents (single page tiff images, database load files or PDF production).
4. Also please note that once the documents have been loaded to Relativity there is no way to run any searches for
these images since they are mostly images and video.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Thank you.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:54 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
V.
(USANYS)
>;
Subject: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Hey
We have some materials that we need uploaded to Relativity to the Epstein database for the purpose of stamping them.
The files in question number about 40,000 and are about 300GB in size. They are currently copying onto a drive to be sent
to Relativity and should be ready by tomorrow. Do you want to see them first or can they go directly to PAE?
Folder/Subfolder in Relativity: US V. Epstein
FBI Case File
Images Seized During Search
Thanks,
Paralegal Specialist
U.S. Attorney's Office I SDNY
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Office:
Cell:
EFTA00028822


c1: EFTA00028452
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028452.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
Subject: RE: case with many potential victims
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 01:43:15 +0000
Importance: Normal
This is all amazing - thank you so much! Not that we had any doubts, but we're working up against a lot of bureaucracy in
this case overall so we're very happy to be in your extremely capable hands for this part.
On just basic logistics, the USAO number is
and the FBI investigation number is
- they are
indeed working on it, and it's Special Agent
(
)
and NYPD Detective (but FBI TFO officer)
both in the C-20 squad.
That all sounds great about notification, and we can check to see who the right contact person is on the FBI side to make
sure the relevant information for the victims has been put into the FBI database (or if you have someone there you
normally coordinate with, don't hesitate to reach out directly if that's preferable).
We'll also definitely include that language with the 800 number in the press release, and I imagine we will also have
say the number if there's a press conference as well. We'll also coordinate with the agents on whether they want to
notify the victims at the time of arrest or whether we should give you that contact info, but either way we appreciate that
you can do it.
Please let me know if anything else would be useful for you at this stage? And today got away from me - just catching up
on emails from this morning now - but we're generally around in the next day or two so can connect up at a time that
works for you.
thanks again,
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 09:32
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: RE: case with many potential victims
The press release should have our 800 line 866 874-8900 that number rings on my desk. Something like, if you believe
that you are a victim please call
Victim Witness Coordinator at 8668748900 or If you believe you are a victim
of this crime please call 8668748900.
This is a case that FBI is working on too? So as the interviews are done the victim should have been put into the FBI data
base. As soon the complaint is filed in Federal District Court all the information on the FBI side should cross over to us.
We will send out the notice of charges filed immediately. Every time we have a court date victims will be noticed. Anyone
that calls I will get the name and number and give it to the FBI.
EFTA00028452

=== Page 2 ===
If you would like on the day of the arrest I can call the victims that you have so far and make them aware that he has been
arrested.
Anything else you want done we will do. We are not the Southern District of Florida.
I need the FBI investigation number and the USAO no. to make the smooth transition.
I am around all day.
From:
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 7:46 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: case with many potential victims
We are in the process of investigating Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire who previously was granted a non-prosecution
agreement following an investigation based in Florida, for conduct committed in New York-specifically, paying dozens of
minor girls to engage in sex acts with him at his Manhattan mansion. The investigation is still very much covert and
confidential, but we've quietly been in touch with victims in New York and Florida and we expect to charge the case in the
next week or so.
One extremely important element of the case will be making sure we comply with our victims' rights obligations,
especially because in the initial Florida investigation the U.S. Attorney's Office violated those rights (as was recently found
by a federal court in Florida). So we wanted to coordinate with you on the best way to provide information for victims to
contact us. I think sometimes in a case like this we would have the victims call the FBI, but because of the extreme
sensitivity about the prior U.S. Attorney's Office failing to meet the requirements, we may want to direct victims to
contact us.
It may be that we get very few calls, or we may get a ton-it will be a high-profile prosecution and it's been widely
reported that he had dozens or hundreds of victims. Would there be a good time sometime in the next couple days to
meet and talk about what you think would be most effective and most efficient in terms of making sure we have our
bases covered? Some combination of the case team (me,
and
)
are available anytime that's convenient
for you, and we can also send any additional info that would be helpful.
Thanks very much as always,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00028453


c1: EFTA00028117
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028117.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Bcc: "USAHUB-USAJournal111"
Subject: RE: Help with Epstein Privilege Review
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 15:39:52 +0000
Embedded: RE:_Help_with_Epstein_Privilege_Review.msg
Sender
Subject: RE: Help with Epstein Privilege Review
Message-Id:
<SN5P110MB0542489BBB4B018BDF6D29E892110@SN5P110MB0542.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
>
To:
EFTA00028117


c1: EFTA00027876
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027876.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
)"
Subject: Re: Final Voucher 10810414(1) prepared by a travel arranger is pending your review
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:58:33 +0000
The Govt. card is the default payment method for business travel.
You can make any amendments by clicking amend modify instead of approve.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:55 PM,
)
wrote:
Sorry but I don't believe this voucher is accurate, similar to the prior one. First, it appears to allocate one night of the
hotel to the travel card, which is incorrect-the entirety of the hotel was paid on my personal card (please see attached
email and I'm again sending the hotel invoice). Additionally, it doesn't appear to include the hotel tax of $ 70.12, which I
also paid on my personal credit card.
Please let me know when it's corrected and l'll review again. Thanks.
From
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 18:46
Subject: Final Voucher 10810414(1) prepared by a travel arranger is pending your review
Dear
Final voucher 10810414(1) has been prepared by your travel arranger and is ready for your review. Please log
into E2 Solutions to review the document.
Trip ID: 10810414
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name
Purpose: R20NYST3179 - U.S. V. Epstein - Witness Interview
Destination: Santa Monica, CA, United States
Dates: 2019-11-13 - 2019-11-15
Current status: Pending Voucher Approval
Voucher total expenses: 1517.64
Estimated trip cost: 1583.95
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
EFTA00027876

=== Page 2 ===
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change
your email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage
the emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# V0012
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
<mime-attachment>
<FOLIODETE_20191115122139.pdf>
EFTA00027877


c1: EFTA00029491
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029491.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Bcc:
Subject: RE: search terms for devices
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 16:40:54 +0000
Embedded: RE:_search_terms_for_devices.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: search terms for devices
Message-Id:
<SN5P110MB0542ED865C04649A8669624A92090@SN5P110MB0542.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To:
To:
EFTA00029491


c1: EFTA00029440
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029440.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Maxwell articles
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:37:32 +0000
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/ghislaine-maxwell-denied-bail-in-epstein-sex-abuse-
case/2020/07/14/d9716b4e-c5d0-11ea-a99f-3bbdffb1af38_story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/nyregion/ghislaine-maxwell-bail.html?searchResultPosition=5
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8518795/Ghislaine-Maxwellpleads-not-guilty-fights-5M-bail.hml
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/us/ghislaine-maxwell-pleads-not-guilty/index.html
https://nypost.com/2020/07/14/ghislaine-maxwell-posed-as-journalist-when-buying-nh-mansion/
EFTA00029440


c1: EFTA00028200
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028200.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: SOL
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 03:15:31 +0000
Attachments: 2021-02-26_GM_Government_Opposition8.lep.docx
- This is great, really persuasive. Some small edits/suggestions in the attached.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 8:30 PM
To:
Subject: SOL
Team,
If possible, I'd like to send this draft to the chiefs late tonight/ early tomorrow morning-if you have a chance to review,
that would be great, otherwise I'll happily take comments simultaneously or following the chiefs' review.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00028200


c1: EFTA00027372
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027372.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov" <cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov>
To:
Subject: 21-58 United States of America V. Maxwell "Defective Document CURED"
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:27:57 +0000
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits
attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of
all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees
apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first
viewing.
Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was filed on 04/05/2021
Case Name:
United States of America V. Maxwell
Case Number: 21-58
Docket Text:
CURED DEFECTIVE MOTION FOR BAIL[39], on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell in 21-58, 21-770,
FILED.[3070280] [21-58, 21-770]
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Notice will be stored in the notice cart for:
Quality Control 1
EFTA00027372


c1: EFTA00028661
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028661.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: "Chiefs"
Ce:
Bee:
Subject: SDNY NEWS CLIPS, OCTOBER 7, 2020
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 22:20:02 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
OF
SDNY PRESS CLIPPINGS
ENTRE
JUSTITIA
MAXWELL
NYPOST: https://nypost.com/2020/10/07/ghislaine-maxwellprosecutors-want-to-withhold-sensitive-photos/
INSIDER: https://www.insider.com/ghislaine-maxwell-lowyer-represent-osama-bin-loden-associate-2020-10
MATTERS OF INTEREST
PROPUBLICA: https://www.propublica.org/article/do)-frees-federal-prosecutors-to-toke-steps-that-could-interfere-with-elections-weakening/ong-standing-policy
MEDIAITE: https://www.mediaite.com/ty/out-of-control-gulini-blowsup-bloomberg-tv-interview-with-wild-rant-over-hunterbiden-joes-dementia/
POLITICO: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/trump-demands-barr-arrest-foes-427389
SPECTRUM: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2020/10/07/white-supremacist-groups-pose-greatest-us-domestic-teror-threat
FOX: https://www.fox29.com/news/shooting-outside-taylor-swifts-tribeca-home
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/07/920820361/mcofee-founder-accused-of-evading-taxes-while-alegediy-earning-niions
BLOOMBERGhttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-low-week/private-equity-principals-tribol-bond-scheme-conviction-revived)
DAILY NEWS: https://www.nwfdailynews.com/story/news/2020/10/07/forida-wounded-worior-kolfgge-says-politics-bhind-his-fraud-charges-steve-bannon/583018002/
LATIMES: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/ty/story/2020-10-07/true-crime-unsolved-mysteries-a-wilderness-of-error-thejinx-errol-moris
NJ.COM: https://www.n.com/new/2020/10/nijudge-whose-family-was-attacked-bygunman-soy-she-hasforgiven-hersonskiler-and-wil-return-to-the-bench.html
EFTA00028661


c1: EFTA00027713
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027713.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
To:
"
)"
Subject: Accepted: Call with PAE re Epstein
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 19:42:20 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00027713


c1: EFTA00029518
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029518.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
ITEM(S)
CANNOT
BE
SCANNED
DESCRIPTION
CD
Official DocLab Instruction(s) - Revised 10-Apr-2014
MM03-AGT
-000188
EFTA00029518

=== Page 2 ===
128mB Camera CARDS
MM03-AGT
-000189
EFTA00029519


c1: EFTA00029179
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029179.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: Fwd: Epstein/MCC
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:09:15 +0000
See below, wonder where it came from.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: November 14, 2019 at 1:02:48 PM EST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein/MCC
Disconcertingly, CNN has heard that a decision/announcement will come next week. Their feeling is that there will be
charges.
Public Affairs
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney's Office I Southern District of New York
I Mobile
EFTA00029179


c1: EFTA00028110
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028110.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
To:
,
(
Subject: Fwd: Costa Mesa CA / Orange county tax exempt form
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 00:05:01 +0000
Attachments: Orange_County_CA_Tax_exempt_form.pdf;ATT00001.htm
Hi
Orange County CA is lodging tax exempt.
please assist with the tax issue.
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
"
Date: November 7, 2019 at 9:01:36 AM EST
To:
)"
=
)"
Cc:
(
Subject: California trip Santa Monica
The old tax exempt link seem broken to me.
https://www.google.com/search?
source=hp&ei=GSPEXd2iG6qp_QaGra_wDA&q=whattcounty+is+santamonica-in&oq=whattcountyists
nta&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0170i251j0l9.959.12224.14884..1.0.0.10.1729.19j2...3..1.gws-
viz.....131.3m22FI8mPFY#spf=1573135145376
From:
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2019 4:58 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: travel approval request
Approved
EFTA00028110

=== Page 2 ===
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 5, 2019, at 4:56 PM,
wrote:
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please
request permission for the team to travel next week for an interview in Los Angeles on November 14. We
expect to be traveling, respectively, some combination of the 13th to the 15th (and no conference room
necessary for this trip).
thanks,
From:
)
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 13:55
To:
Cc:
)
i
A.
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please
request permission to travel next week for an interview in West Palm Beach on November 4. It will just be
me and
,
and we'll travel some combination of the 3rd to the 5th. And also same as last time, we'd
like to ask permission to reserve a conference room at the hotel on that Monday for the interview, please.
thanks very much,
From:
)
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 14:51
To:
EFTA00028111

=== Page 3 ===
Cc:
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Again in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request permission to
travel next week for a victim interview in Los Angeles. As of now we tentatively expect to fly down
Wednesday and return no later than Friday (and will keep the timeframe as short as scheduling allows). The
trip will be some combination of me,
, and/or
, as previously. And also same as last time, we'd
like to ask permission to reserve a conference room at the hotel on Thursday for the interview, please.
thanks very much,
From:
)
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 14:57
To:
Cc:
)
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Again in connection with the Epstein investigation, we'd like to please request permission to travel for
approximately three days next week for meetings and interviews in West Palm Beach, Florida. As of now we
tentatively expect to fly down Tuesday night and return on Wednesday or Thursday (and will keep the
timeframe as short as scheduling allows).
Unfortunately we're still trying to pin down timing for interviewing the victims, so depending on the timing it
will either be me and
or
and
,
but we wanted to ask for permission now either way so
we weren't doing it super last minute after the holiday on Tuesday. And also same as last time, we'd like to
ask permission to reserve a conference room at the hotel for the interviews, please.
thanks very much,
EFTA00028112

=== Page 4 ===
From:
)
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 20:57
To:
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Thank you
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 20:46
To:
Cc:
i
Subject: Re: travel approval request
Approved
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 3, 2019, at 8:02 PM,
wrote:
,
For the same case as below, United States V. Epstein, 2018R01618, an investigation relating to enticement of
minors for sexual activity,
and I would like to please request permission to travel for approximately
three days next week for meetings and interviews in West Palm Beach, Florida. As of now we tentatively
expect to fly down Tuesday night and return on Friday, though we will shorten the timeframe if scheduling
allows.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks very much.
EFTA00028113

=== Page 5 ===
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 18:32
To:
Cc:
)
Subject: travel approval request
and I would like to please request permission for travel for United States V. Epstein,
2018R01618, an investigation relating to enticement of minors for sexual activity, for two days of meetings
and interviews in West Palm Beach and/or Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As of now we're hoping to fly down
next Wednesday night and return on Saturday.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks as always.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00028114


c1: EFTA00027871
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027871.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: Maxwell update to court - due 4/6
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 20:49:10 +0000
Attachments: MDC_Conditions_Letter_2-16_FINAL.pdf
Hi
Our next update regarding Maxwell's conditions of confinement is due on Tuesday 4/6. Is there a time tomorrow or
Monday when we could please have a call to check in and get an update? In particular, it would be useful to talk through
the issues raised in defense counsel's most recent letter on this topic, which I've attached here for reference.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00027871


c1: EFTA00029496
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029496.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Subject:
From:
Sent:
Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:45:20 -0800
To:
"jeffrey E." <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Oh no no no!
Un F ing believable!!
On Jan 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.trunews.com/jeffrey-epstein-allegedly-targeted-well-known-actress-13/
please note
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
EFTA00029496


c1: EFTA00028903
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028903.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
V.
:
:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
X
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL
IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR
OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
Phone:
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
Phone:
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Phone:
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
EFTA00028903

=== Page 2 ===
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
The 2003 Amendment Does Not Apply Retroactively
2
A.
Step One: Congress Did Not Expressly Prescribe Retroactivity and
Rejected a Proposal to Do So
3
1.
Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision ends the
inquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor.
3
2.
Cases applying the 2003 Amendment retroactively are readily
distinguishable.
5
3.
The government cannot prevail at step one.
7
B.
Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's Alleged
Offenses Would Have Impermissible Effects.
8
II.
Section 3283 Does Not Apply at All.
10
A.
Section 3283 Applies Only to Offenses that Necessarily Entail the Sexual
Abuse or Physical Abuse, or Kidnapping, of a Child.
11
B.
The Offenses Charged in Counts One Through Four Do Not Necessarily
Entail the Sexual or Physical Abuse or Kidnapping of a Child.
14
CONCLUSION
16
i
EFTA00028904

=== Page 3 ===
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Bridges V. United States,
346 U.S. 209 (1953)
11, 13, 14
Burrage V. United States,
571 U.S. 204 (2014)
14
Cisneros V. Alpine Ridge Group,
508 U.S. 10 (1993)
7
Falter V. United States,
23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1928)
10
Hughes Aircraft Co. V. U.S. ex rel. Schumer,
520 U.S. 939 (1997)
8,9
In re Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co.,
391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004)
6,9
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. V. Bonjorno,
494 U.S. 827 (1990)
3
Kawashima V. Holder,
565 U.S. 478 (2012)
11
Landgraf v. USI Film Products,
511 U.S. 244 (1994)
passim
Leocal V. Ashcroft,
543 U.S. 1 (2004)
11
Martin V. Hadix,
527 U.S. 343 (1999)
6
Nijhawan V. Holder,
557 U.S. 29 (2009)
12, 13
Shular V. United States,
140 S. Ct. 779 (2020)
11, 14
Toussie V. United States,
397 U.S. 112 (1970)
8, 9, 10, 14
ii
EFTA00028905

=== Page 4 ===
United States V. Ayo,
801 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (S.D. Ala. 2011)
12
United States V. Brown,
800 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-5064, -- S.Ct. -- 2021
WL 78235 (Jan. 11, 2021)
5
United States V. Coutentos,
651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011)
13
United States V. Davis,
139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019)
11, 14
United States V. Gentile,
235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017)
8,9,10
United States V. Jeffries,
405 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1007 (2005)
5
United States V. Leo Sure Chief,
438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006)
5
United States V. Miller,
911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018)
passim
United States V. Morgan,
393 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
12
United States V. Nader,
425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019)
6, 7, 9
United States V. Pierre-Louis,
No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018)
5
United States V. Scharton,
285 U.S. 518 (1932)
8
United States V. Schneider,
801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015)
14
United States V. Sensi,
No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010)
5
United States V. Vickers,
No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014)
15
Vernon V. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist.,
49 F.3d 886 (2d Cir. 1995)
9
iii
EFTA00028906

=== Page 5 ===
Weingarten V. United States,
865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017)
5, 6, 7, 13
Statutes
18 U.S.C. 2422(a)
2, 13, 14, 15
18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)
2, 13, 14, 15
18 U.S.C. § 3282
8, 12
18 U.S.C. $ 3283 ("2003 Amendment")
passim
18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(8)
14
18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (1990)
8
8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)
12
Pub. L. No. 101-647
8
Other Authorities
Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, S5147 (2003)
3
iv
EFTA00028907

=== Page 6 ===
Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her
Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred
("Motion").
As the government agrees in its opposition ("Opp."), the four Mann Act counts against
Ms. Maxwell are timely only if the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. $ 3283 ("2003 Amendment")
applies to the conduct charged therein. The 2003 Amendment expands the statute of limitations
for an "offense involving" the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. Because the
2003 Amendment does not apply retroactively, and because § 3283 does not apply to the
offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged, the Mann Act counts should be dismissed.
First, the 2003 Amendment cannot be applied retroactively because Congress did not
intend it to apply retroactively. While the government cites several cases in which courts have
applied the 2003 Amendment to pre-enactment conduct, the only court to do so after analyzing
congressional intent under the two-step framework required by Landgraf v. USI Film Products,
511 U.S. 244 (1994)-and to even mention Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity
provision in the 2003 Amendment-improperly excluded legislative history from its analysis.
No court has applied the Landgraf framework, considered the legislative history, and still
concluded that Congress intended the 2003 Amendment to overcome the presumption against
retroactivity, as the government asks this Court to do.
Because Congress' clear rejection of a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment
constitutes an express prescription of the amendment's temporal reach, the 2003 Amendment
does not apply retroactively, and the Landgraf analysis ends at step one. Even if the analysis
proceeds to step two, however, Landgraf does not permit the Court, without clear congressional
EFTA00028908

=== Page 7 ===
direction to the contrary, to override the longstanding principle that criminal statutes of
limitations are to be interpreted in favor of repose.
Second, Ms. Maxwell's Motion should be granted for the separate and independent
reason that $ 3283 does not apply to 18 U.S.C. $ 2422(a) or 18 U.S.C. $ 2423(a), the two Mann
Act provisions with which Ms. Maxwell is charged, because neither offense necessarily entails,
as an element of the offense, the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. While the
government attempts to distinguish a long line of Supreme Court cases holding that an "offense"
or "crime" that "involves" certain conduct means an offense that necessarily requires or entails
that conduct, it fails to cite a single case outside the § 3283 context in which "offense involving"
language has been interpreted otherwise-and the cases that have interpreted $ 3283 as
permitting a fact-based inquiry have failed to consider the voluminous Supreme Court authority
to the contrary. Consideration of such authority compels application of $ 3283 by reference to
the elements of the offense at issue, and even under the definition of "sexual abuse" the
government proposes, none of the elements of either § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) constitutes sexual
abuse.
I.
The 2003 Amendment Does Not Apply Retroactively.
The government does not dispute that Landgrafis the appropriate framework for
determining whether a statute applies retroactively. Opp. 27. Under Landgraf, the first step is
"to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach"; if it has,
there is no need to proceed further. 551 U.S. at 280. If it has not, the court must determine
"whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would impair rights a
party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties
with respect to transactions already completed." Id.
2
EFTA00028909

=== Page 8 ===
As Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum ("Mem.") has demonstrated, proper application
of Landgraf prohibits retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment. Congressional intent
could not be clearer; Congress considered and expressly rejected a provision that would have
made the 2003 Amendment retroactive. That ends the Landgraf inquiry at step one. Even if the
inquiry proceeds to step two, however, the government has failed to adequately rebut Ms.
Maxwell's showing that application of the 2003 Amendment here would have impermissible
retroactive effects.
A.
Step One: Congress Did Not Expressly Prescribe Retroactivity and Rejected
a Proposal to Do So.
1.
Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision ends the
inquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor.
"[W]here the congressional intent is clear, it governs." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 264
(quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. V. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 837 (1990)). As Ms.
Maxwell's opening memorandum demonstrated, congressional intent with respect to the
retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment is clear: the House version of the bill included
an express retroactivity provision, the Senate version contained no retroactivity provision, and, in
the words of one of the bill's co-sponsors, the House-Senate conference "agreed to drop
language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period
retroactively." Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, S5147 (2003). The Court
need look no further. Such an unambiguous expression of congressional intent establishes
conclusively that the 2003 Amendment is not retroactive.
The government argues that Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision is not
probative, because according to Senator Leahy's floor statement, the decision was grounded in
concerns about the revival of time-barred charges rather than the extension of live charges, and at
least some of the charges here were live at the time of the 2003 Amendment. But to the extent
3
EFTA00028910

=== Page 9 ===
that Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision was motivated by such concerns, I
Congress nonetheless chose to address those concerns by eliminating the retroactivity provision
altogether, rather than simply modifying it to prohibit the revival of time-barred charges. If
Congress had intended to distinguish between live charges and time-barred charges, it could
easily have done so. Its decision to drop the provision completely demonstrates a clear intent
that the 2003 Amendment not be applied retroactively. The Court may not override that clear
intent merely because doing so may have been a broader measure than necessary to address the
concerns Senator Leahy articulated. 2
The government also contends that heeding Congress' specific intent not to make the
2003 Amendment retroactive would "undermine Congress's plain purpose" in enacting it-i.e.,
to extend the limitations period "to ensure that prosecutors could seek justice for child sex abuse
victims who come forward or identify their abusers after a delay." See Opp. 31. But statutory
amendments, by nature, are designed to remedy perceived deficiencies in existing law, and thus a
decision not to apply any amendment retroactively will typically limit, or "undermine," the
effectuation of that purpose. For that reason, as the Supreme Court acknowledged in Landgraf,
an amendment's purpose is immaterial to a retroactivity analysis:
I
While Senator Leahy's floor statement confirms that Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision was
intentional, his statement as to why the provision was rejected cannot be ascribed to other members of Congress.
2 The government implicitly asks the Court to disregard the voluminous authority emphasizing the significant weight
to be given congressional consideration and explicit rejection of a proposed statutory provision (see Mem. 7-8),
relying solely on the Supreme Court's treatment in Landgraf of an omission from the comprehensive Civil Rights
Act of 1991 of an "elaborate retroactivity provision" that had been included in a vetoed civil rights bill passed by a
prior Congress. See Opp. 31 n.14 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 256). That omission is not analogous. There was
no indication in Landgraf that Congress had even considered, let alone rejected, such a provision in the legislation it
ultimately enacted. Moreover, the provision from the prior Congress' bill was indeed "elaborate": it did not simply
prescribe retroactivity, as the provision stricken from the 2003 Amendment would have done, but assigned a series
of different effective dates to different subsections. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 255 n.8. The absence of such a detailed
scheme from subsequent legislation, passed by a subsequent Congress, could not be reasonably interpreted as a clear
reflection of congressional intent regarding retroactivity, and there is no indication in the opinion that any party
argued otherwise.
4
EFTA00028911

=== Page 10 ===
It will frequently be true, as petitioner and amici forcefully argue here, that
retroactive application of a new statute would vindicate its purpose more fully.
That consideration, however, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption against
retroactivity. Statutes are seldom crafted to pursue a single goal, and
compromises necessary to their enactment may require adopting means
other than those that would most effectively pursue the main goal.
Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 285-86 (emphasis added). Thus, it is not anomalous at all that Congress
would "exempt[] all past offenders" from the new limitations period, as the government asserts
(Opp. 31); to the contrary, the law presumes that past conduct is exempt from legislation. Here,
Congress' clear intent that the 2003 Amendment not be retroactive resolves the Landgraf inquiry
in Ms. Maxwell's favor at step one.
2.
Cases applying the 2003 Amendment retroactively are readily
distinguishable.
While the government cites several cases that have applied the 2003 Amendment
retroactively (Opp. 26-27), most of those cases analyzed the issue under the Ex Post Facto
Clause and gave little, if any, consideration to congressional intent regarding retroactivity (as
opposed to the intent of the amendment itself). In all but one of those cases, no Landgraf
analysis was performed, and it does not appear that Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity
provision was considered or even raised. 3 But the government does not dispute that Landgraf is
the appropriate framework-nor can it, given the Second Circuit's acknowledgment that the
retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment must be analyzed under Landgraf. Weingarten V. United
States, 865 F.3d 48, 54-58 (2d Cir. 2017).
3 No Landgraf analysis was performed, nor was Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision discussed, in
United States V. Brown, 800 F. App'x 455, 461 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing issue in a single sentence and referring
only to the intent of the amendment generally), cert. denied, No. 20-5064, -- S.Ct. -- 2021 WL 78235 (Jan. 11,
2021); United States V. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing only the intent of the
amendment generally); United States V. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005) (no Landgraf analysis or
consideration of legislative history), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1007 (2005); United States V. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr.
541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (addressing only Ex Post Facto clause); or United
States V. Sensi, No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010) (same).
5
EFTA00028912

=== Page 11 ===
The only exception is United States V. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019). In
Nader, the court performed a Landgraf analysis in analyzing the retroactivity of the 2003
Amendment, and it appears to be the only previous case in which Congress' explicit rejection of
a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment has even been mentioned. In Nader, however,
the court noted the legislative history of the 2003 Amendment but held that only the text of the
amendment was relevant to step one of Landgraf. 425 F. Supp. 3d at 627 (finding legislative
history arguments "misplaced within the first step of the Landgraf analysis, which asks only
whether the statute at issue contains
language unequivocally delineating the time period to
which it applies").
Nader's exclusion of legislative history from the Landgraf analysis⁴ cannot be reconciled
with the Supreme Court's applications of Landgraf-or, for that matter, with Landgraf itself.
See, e.g., Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 264 (considering legislative history); Martin V. Hadix, 527 U.S.
343, 355-57 (1999) (examining "structure and legislative history" as part of first Landgraf step).
And as the government acknowledges, "the Second Circuit has considered both the text of the
statute and the legislative history" at the first Landgraf step. Opp. 28 (citing In re Enterprise
Mortgage Acceptance Co., 391 F.3d 401, 406-08 (2d Cir. 2004)). Thus, Nader is not persuasive
authority.
In short, no court has considered Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision
in performing a Landgraf analysis of the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment. In fact, the
government cites only three cases that have analyzed the 2003 Amendment under Landgraf at
all: the Second Circuit and First Circuit opinions in Weingarten and United States V. Miller, 911
F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018), respectively, which were ineffective assistance of counsel cases and
4 Although the court in Nader explicitly characterized legislative history arguments as "misplaced" within step one
of Landgraf, it also omitted them from step two of its Landgraf analysis. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 627-32.
6
EFTA00028913

=== Page 12 ===
thus did not decide the issue (and in which Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision was
not discussed), and Nader, in which the court incorrectly excluded legislative history from its
Landgraf analysis. If Landgraf is correctly applied, and legislative history is given its proper
weight in the analysis, it is clear from Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision that it did
not intend the 2003 Amendment to be retroactive. Counts One through Four are therefore time-
barred.
3.
The government cannot prevail at step one.
Meanwhile, the government's claim that it should prevail at step one can be easily
dispensed with. The government relies on the language in the 2003 Amendment that "[n]o
statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution" of a child sexual offense "shall
preclude" prosecution during the life of the victim. 18 U.S.C. $ 3283 (2003). While the
government argues that this language refers to the pre-amendment version of $ 3283, the Second
Circuit recognized in Weingarten that "there is a more natural interpretation of that phrase that
does not address retroactivity-that Congress intended the language in the 2003 version of
§ 3283 to clarify that the statute prescribes a statute of limitations for applicable offenses that is
different from the default five-year limitations period under federal law." Weingarten, 865 F.3d
at 55. See also Miller, 911 F.3d at 644 (suggesting that "otherwise preclude" language "may
refer only to preclusion by the five-year federal default statute of limitations"); Nader, 425 F.
Supp. 3d at 626 (interpreting same language to "merely 'signal the drafter's intention that the
provisions
override conflicting provisions of any other section," rather than the pre-
amendment version of § 3283) (quoting Cisneros V. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 18
(1993)).
This interpretation is bolstered further by the presence of the same "[n]o statute of
limitation[s] that would otherwise preclude" language in the 1990 statute that originally created
7
EFTA00028914

=== Page 13 ===
the expanded statute of limitations for child sex abuse crimes. See Opp. Mem. 24 (quoting
Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, tit. II, $ 225(a), 104 Stat. 4789, 4798 (codified
at 18 U.S.C. $ 3509(k) (1990)). In 1990, "the only existing limitations period to which the
language could have referred was the [five-year] default limit set forth in [18 U.S.C. $ 3282]."
Miller, 911 F.3d at 644. That is the logical reading of the same provision here.
The government cannot prevail on step one. If step one is not resolved in Ms. Maxwell's
favor, the inquiry must proceed to step two.
B.
Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's Alleged
Offenses Would Have Impermissible Effects.
Even if the Landgraf inquiry were to proceed to the second step-whether retroactive
application would have impermissible effects-Ms. Maxwell should prevail. In arguing
otherwise, the government effectively claims that in the retroactivity context, Landgraf permits
the Court to ignore the bedrock principle that "criminal limitations statutes are 'to be liberally
interpreted in favor of repose." Toussie V. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970) (quoting
United States V. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518, 522 (1932)). But nothing in Landgraf, a civil case,
purports to limit that principle, let alone abrogate it.
The government asserts that no court has held that retroactively extending a filing period
for live charges is a presumptively impermissible retroactive effect under Landgraf (Opp. 35),
but that is not so. In United States V. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017), the court held
that it would be impermissible to retroactively extend a statute of limitations for live charges
"absent clear legislative intent" to apply the expanded limitations retroactively. Id. at 655. In
doing so, the court read Landgraf in conjunction not only with Toussie but also with Hughes
Aircraft Co. V. U.S. ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939 (1997), a post-Landgraf opinion in which the
Supreme Court reiterated the law's presumption against retroactivity and reiterated that "we
8
EFTA00028915

=== Page 14 ===
apply this time-honored presumption unless Congress has clearly manifested its intent to the
contrary." Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 2d at 654 (quoting Hughes, 520 U.S. at 946 (emphasis added
by court)). 5 The First Circuit, addressing the issue on an ineffective assistance of counsel of
claim (and thus not reaching a merits decision), issued a similar caution in the specific context of
the 2003 Amendment:
[W]hen Congress has sounded an uncertain trumpet, a court ought to refrain from
applying an enlarged criminal statute of limitations retrospectively.
Seen in
this light, Toussie potentially alters the second step in the Landgraf approach.
Miller, 911 F.3d at 645. 6
By contrast, the government cites only one case-Nader-in which a court has held that
the application of a criminal statute of limitations to pre-enactment conduct is permissible under
the second step of Landgraf. Like the government here, however, the court in Nader offered no
path to reconciling Landgraf with Toussie. Instead, it applied Landgraf, a civil case, in a manner
that interprets Toussie out of existence in the retroactivity context, without any suggestion from
the Supreme Court that it intended such an effect. The opinions in Miller and Gentile, in
acknowledging the need to read Landgraf and Toussie in harmony, provide the correct legal
framework for the application of the second step of Landgraf. This is particularly so in light of
Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment, a factor not
considered in Miller and absent from Gentile.
In arguing that "Congress may retroactively extend the limitations period for still-viable
prosecutions" (Opp. 34) (emphasis added), the government completely misses the point. There is
5 The government's attempt to discredit Gentile on the ground that it relied in part on a pre-Landgraf opinion (Opp.
36) rings hollow. The court made clear that it was applying Landgraf (in conjunction with Toussie and Hughes).
Gentile, 235 F. Supp. at 654-55.
6 For this reason, the Second Circuit's applications of Landgraf in Vernon V. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist.,
49 F.3d 886 (2d Cir. 1995), and In re Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co., 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004)-both of
which involved civil statutes of limitations-do not resolve the issue.
9
EFTA00028916

=== Page 15 ===
no dispute that Congress could have amended § 3283 in 2003 to extend the limitations period for
live charges; had it done so explicitly, the government would prevail on the first Landgraf step.⁷
Rather, the second Landgraf step asks whether the effects of retroactive application of a statute
are such that the Court, in the absence of an express retroactivity provision, should presume that
Congress intended to apply the statute retroactively. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283 (framing
issue as whether a law is "the kind of provision that [applies] to events antedating its enactment
in the absence of clear congressional intent").8 As both Miller and Gentile recognize, Toussie
suggests that, in the context of a criminal statute of limitations, Congress should not be presumed
to have intended retroactive application absent a clear expression of such intent, and the Court
should not reach such a conclusion here.
II.
Section 3283 Does Not Apply at All.
Ms. Maxwell's Motion should be granted for the separate and independent reason that
regardless of whether the 2003 Amendment can be applied retroactively, $ 3283 does not apply
to the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged. Neither enticement of an individual to travel
nor transportation of a minor is an "offense involving" the sexual or physical abuse or
kidnapping of a child. The government fails to rebut the long line of cases interpreting "offense
involving" language to refer to offenses that necessarily entail particular conduct, and the
7 For this reason, the government's invocation of Falter V. United States, 23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1928)-a case
decided decades before both Landgraf and Toussie-adds nothing to the analysis. While the government cites
Falter for the uncontroversial proposition the law treats the revival of time-barred criminal charges more harshly
than the extension of live charges-indeed, as the government points out, the former raises issues under the Ex Post
Facto Clause-it sheds no light on the issue of statutory interpretation here, particularly in light of Landgraf and
Toussie.
8 The fact that the inquiry into a statute's retroactive effects is the second step of Landgraf, rather than the first,
demonstrates that Landgrafis not an inquiry into a statute's constitutionality. If the Landgraf analysis were simply
an inquiry into whether the Ex Post Facto clause permits Congress to apply a criminal statute of limitations
retroactively, as the government contends (Opp. 34-35), the first step would have to be read out of Landgraf
entirely. Otherwise, Congress could expressly prescribe an unconstitutional retroactive application of a statute,
thereby ending the analysis at step one before the court ever addressed the statute's constitutionality.
10
EFTA00028917

=== Page 16 ===
offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged do not require the sexual or physical abuse or
kidnapping of a child.
A.
Section 3283 Applies Only to Offenses that Necessarily Entail the Sexual
Abuse or Physical Abuse, or Kidnapping, of a Child.
As demonstrated in Ms. Maxwell's opening brief, the Supreme Court has held repeatedly
and consistently that an "offense" or "crime" that "involves" certain conduct means an offense
that necessarily entails or requires that conduct. See, e.g., Shular V. United States, 140 S. Ct.
779, 782 (2020) ("a court should look to the state offense's elements" rather than case-specific
facts); United States V. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2328 (2019) (rejecting argument that "offense
that
involves" provision permitted court to look to case-specific facts, even if necessary to
save provision from unconstitutional vagueness); Kawashima V. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 484
(2012) (interpreting "offenses that involve fraud or deceit" to mean "offenses with elements that
necessarily entail fraudulent or deceitful conduct") (internal punctuation omitted); Leocal V.
Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 7 (2004) (stating that "offense that
involves" language "requires us to
look to the elements and the nature of the offense rather than to the particular facts" at issue);
Bridges V. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 217 n.15, 221 (1953) (limiting extended statute of
limitations for "any offense [] involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States" to
"offenses in which defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States is an essential
ingredient of the offense charged"). The government's attempt to limit this clear line of cases is
unpersuasive.
The government claims that a "necessarily entails" approach (or, as the government
describes it, a "categorical" approach) is "only used in settings like sentencing and immigration,
where a court is asked to evaluate the conduct from a prior conviction." Opp. 39. While one
would expect the government to support such a statement with citations to Supreme Court cases
11
EFTA00028918

=== Page 17 ===
outside the sentencing and immigration context in which the "necessarily entails" approach has
been rejected, it fails to offer any.9 Nor does the government respond to the case law cited by
Ms. Maxwell in which courts have interpreted "offense involving" language in a venue statute,
which has nothing to do with sentencing, immigration, or prior convictions, to refer to the
elements of the offense. See, e.g., United States V. Morgan, 393 F.3d 192, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
("The most natural reading of $ 3237(a) 2 is to construe "any offense involving' by reference to
the elements of the offense at issue.") (emphasis in original); United States V. Ayo, 801 F. Supp.
2d 1323, 1331 (S.D. Ala. 2011) ("The Eleventh Circuit has employed the second paragraph of
Section 3237(a) when such transportation, or use of the mails, is an element of the offense
charged."). The arbitrary limitations the government seeks to impose on the "necessarily entails"
approach simply do not exist.
The Supreme Court's opinion in Nijhawan V. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009)-the only
Supreme Court case the government cites in which the Court applied a fact-based approach to an
"offense involving" statute-does not break this line of cases at all. In Nijhawan, the statutory
provision at issue referred to "an offense that
involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the
victim or victims exceeds $10,000." 557 U.S. at 32 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i))
(emphasis added by Court). The issue before the Court was not whether the statute required
"fraud or deceit" to be an element of the underlying offense, but whether the referenced
monetary threshold was required to be an element. The Court held that it was not, reasoning that
"[t]he words 'in which' (which modify 'offense') can refer to the conduct involved 'in' the
9 According to the government, the ostensible rationale for the "necessarily entails" approach-avoiding the need
for courts to examine the facts of prior convictions-is not present in the $ 3283 context. But a fact-based approach
poses a different practical obstacle in the statute of limitations context. Under a fact-based approach here, for
example, in order to obtain the benefit of the expanded limitations period, the government would be required to
prove conduct (i.e., sexual abuse) that is not an element of an offense; a jury would be required to find not only that
Ms. Maxwell committed the offenses with which she is charged but also that her offenses "involve[] the sexual
or
physical abuse of a child"; and only after the jury has returned its verdict would it be known which statute of
limitations-$ 3283 or the default provision under $ 3282-applies to this prosecution.
12
EFTA00028919

=== Page 18 ===
commission of the offense of conviction, rather than to the elements of the offense." Id. at 39
(emphasis added by Court). Because $ 3283 contains no such modification to the words "offense
involving," Nijhawan is entirely consistent not only with the Supreme Court cases that interpret
"offense involving" language as referring to elements of the offense, but also with a similar
interpretation of the language as it appears in $ 3283. 10
The Eighth Circuit's opinion in United States V. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011),
squares perfectly with this approach. In Coutentos, the court held that $ 3283 did not apply to a
charge of possession of child pornography, even though the facts of the case involved conduct
that went beyond the elements of child pornography and, according to the court, constituted
sexual abuse. 651 F.3d at 817. The government's attempt to distinguish Coutentos on the
ground that "this case does not involve the possession of child pornography" (Opp. 41) misses
the point: In determining whether § 3283 applied, the court did not consider evidence of actual
sexual abuse and instead confined its focus to the elements of the offense of possession of child
pornography. In other words, it used the "necessarily entails" approach. Similarly, § 3283
requires the Court here to look only to the elements of $ 2422(a) and $ 2423(a), and to disregard
allegations of conduct beyond those elements.
Finally, the government attempts to distinguish Bridges, in which the Supreme Court
used the equivalent of a "necessarily entails" approach specifically with respect to a statute of
limitations, and argues that Bridges is an outlier based on its legislative history. But the
government fails to identify a single statute of limitations other than $ 3283 in which a fact-
10 The government cites the Second Circuit's statement in a footnote in Weingarten that the "offense involving"
language is "equally consistent with applying a fact-based approach." Opp. 39-40 (quoting Weingarten, 865 F.3d at
60 n.11). However, Weingarten relied exclusively on Nijhawan for that proposition; like the government, it cited no
case in which a fact-based approach had been used to apply an "offense involving" statute other than § 3283. In any
event, the Second Circuit did not hold that a fact-based approach applies to § 3283; it held only, in the context of an
ineffective assistance claim, that it was "not obvious" which approach applies. Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 60.
13
EFTA00028920

=== Page 19 ===
based approach has been applied, let alone one that uses "offense involving" language.¹¹ Given
the Supreme Court's consistent interpretation of such language to require a "necessarily entails,"
elements-based approach, $ 3283 should be similarly interpreted-particularly given the
obligation under the rule of lenity to construe any ambiguity in criminal statutes in favor of the
defendant, Burrage V. United States, 571 U.S. 204, 216 (2014), and the principle that "criminal
limitations statutes are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose." Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115
(internal quotations and citation omitted).
B.
The Offenses Charged in Counts One Through Four Do Not Necessarily
Entail the Sexual or Physical Abuse or Kidnapping of a Child.
The government appears to argue that even under the "necessarily entails" approach,
§ 3283 applies to the Mann Act offenses at issue here, because $ 2422(a) and $ 2423(a)
somehow necessarily entail the sexual abuse of a child. The government bases this argument on
its contention that the applicable definition of "sexual abuse" is the definition found at 18 U.S.C.
§ 3509(a)(8), because that definition "includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement,
enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexually
explicit conduct or the rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of
children, or incest with children." 18 U.S.C. $ 3509(a)(8). But even under such an expansive
definition, neither $ 2422(a) nor $ 2423(a) necessarily entails the sexual abuse of a child.
Section 2422(a) does not necessarily entail any act concerning a child, let alone the
"employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child" to engage in any
sex-related conduct. Rather, $ 2422(a) requires only the enticement of an individual-of any
11 The government also cites United States V. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015), in which the court rejected the
defendant's comparison of $ 3283 to the statute in Bridges. To the extent that the Third Circuit rejected a
"necessarily entails" approach to $ 3283, it appears to have done so without considering the line of Supreme Court
cases interpreting the "offense involving" language as requiring such an approach-a line that has since expanded to
include Davis and Shular.
14
EFTA00028921

=== Page 20 ===
age-to travel with the requisite intent. 18 U.S.C. $ 2422(a). Section 2423(a) requires only the
transportation of a child with the requisite intent, 18 U.S.C. $ 2423(a); it does not necessarily
entail "the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child" to do
anything other than travel. If a defendant entices an adult to travel for the purpose of engaging in
unlawful sexual activity, a $ 2422(a) offense has been committed, but no sexual abuse of a child
has occurred. If a defendant transports a minor with the intent (unbeknownst to the minor) that
the minor will engage in sexual activity, no sexual activity occurs, and there is no "employment,
use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion" to engage in sexual activity, a § 2423(a)
offense has been committed, but no sexual abuse of a child has occurred.
While the government cites several cases in which courts have found $ 3283 applicable to
particular statutes, it cites only one case in which either a $ 2422(a) or $ 2423(a) offense has
been held to involve "sexual abuse" within the meaning of $ 3283. In United States V. Vickers,
No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014), the court held that a
$ 2423(a) offense involved sexual abuse, but it did not hold that $ 2423(a) necessarily entails
sexual abuse; instead, the court used a fact-based approach. Id. at *11 ("defendant Vickers is
charged with transportation of a minor in violation of [§ 2423(a)] and it is alleged that the
defendant did have sexual contact with Victim I") (emphasis added). No court has held that
either the enticement of an individual to travel or the transportation of a minor necessarily entails
"sexual abuse" within the meaning of $ 3283. It does not. The government therefore cannot and
should not prevail.
15
EFTA00028922

=== Page 21 ===
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that Counts One
through Four be dismissed.
Dated: March 15, 2021
New York, New York
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christian R. Everdell
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
Phone:
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
Phone:
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Phone:
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
16
EFTA00028923

=== Page 22 ===
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the
Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying
exhibits upon the following:
U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
/s/ Christian Everdell
EFTA00028924


c1: EFTA00028571
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028571.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
To:
)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
Subject: RE: Discovery Issues
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 16:14:07 +0000
Attachments: 2021.05.21 MDC - Maxwell_MAIN.docx; 2021.05.21_MDC_-
_Maxwell_PASSWORD.docx
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg
Disc is burned and ready to get sent out to MDC. Draft cover letters are attached and saved here. Please let me know if
you have any revisions.
Thanks,
From:
)
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 10:46 PM
To: Laura Menninger
>; Christian Everdell
is
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>; Bobbi Sternheim
(
>;
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
Subject: RE: Discovery Issues
Counsel,
Today we have an additional discovery production ready to send to you. This production is small enough to produce via
USAfx. Please let us know if you do not already have a USAfx account, in which case our paralegals (cc'd) can assist you in
creating an account. We are also sending a CD containing this production to the MDC via FedEx.
Attached please find a cover letter accompanying this production. As you will see in the letter, the majority of this
production consists of materials we are providing in response to your requests for additional information regarding the
SUPP production (referenced in the below email exchange). I am also attaching the excel spreadsheet referenced in the
cover letter to assist in your review of the materials from the SUPP production.
Please let us know if you have any further questions regarding the SUPP production or if you have any difficulty accessing
the materials.
Best,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:42 PM
To: Laura Menninger
>; Christian Everdell
is
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>; Bobbi Sternheim
(
Subject: RE: Discovery Issues
EFTA00028571

=== Page 2 ===
Laura,
I am working with our paralegals to look into your requests below. Our paralegals are also still working on the list of files
that you provided that Ms. Maxwell has been unable to review at the MDC. As soon as we are able to provide an update
on these issues, I will reach back out.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
From: Laura Menninger
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 4:53 PM
To:
>; ; Christian Everdell
is
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>; Bobbi Sternheim
(
Subject: RE: Discovery Issues
-
Also following up on your response to Chris. We have had a chance to take a look at these files again.
For the SUPP production, many of the files were produced as PDFs, which seems as though they were converted prior to
production. As I understand it (which is admittedly limited), carved or deleted files can still contain application metadata.
We request that as to the SUPP production, you:
a. Provide a list of all files that were carved or deleted;
b. Confirm if all those files were produced in native format or if any were converted to PDF;
C. If any were converted, provide additional information including the MIME type (for all), and if available from
application metadata original file name, file dates, etc. This would amount to the equivalent of the index you provided for
SDNY011.
d. In the absence of (b), confirm that no application metadata was recovered from those files which might indicate file
creation/modified dates
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Laura
Laura A. Menninger Partner
Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C.
(Office)
EFTA00028572

=== Page 3 ===
From:
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Christian Everdell
>;
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>; Laura Menninger
>; Bobbi Sternheim
Subject: RE: Discovery Issues
Chris,
Following up on these issues:
For #3, the attachments were not recovered from the searched devices. We do not have them, which is why they
were not produced.
For #4, the electronic files recovered from Epstein's devices have the same metadata on the hard drive that was
available when the FBI seized each file. For files that were carved or deleted, no metadata was recovered, so none
is viewable, except for data showing when a particular file was saved to a drive by the investigative team or
prepared for production. I am not aware of any additional metadata in our possession that you do not have for
these files.
For #5, those photographs were not processed by CART, which is why they do not have a CART number. They came
from the CDs that your team reviewed last week. The available metadata for those photographs was produced in
two excel spreadsheets with the same production - one with metadata for nude images (which were contained on
one of the hard drives you reviewed last week), and one with metadata for non-nude images (which were
produced in the November 9, 2020 discovery production). As I mentioned in my email to Laura earlier today, I am
working with our vendor to figure out how to best convey to you which Bates numbers correspond with which rows
in the spreadsheet.
For #6:
The SDNY_GM_SUPP contain electronic files recovered from Epstein's devices. As noted above, those files
have the same metadata on the hard drive that was available when the FBI seized each file. For files that
were carved or deleted, no metadata was recovered, so none is viewable.
The videos from SDNY005 (October 20, 2020 production) were converted by a vendor from VHS and cassette
tapes, so there is no metadata to provide. The Sept-Octo 2020 dates reflect when these recordings were
converted by our vendor.
The SDNY011 (November 9, 2020 production) consists of images from the CDs seized from Epstein's
residences, which you reviewed last week. As referenced above, those photographs were not processed by
CART, which is why they do not have a CART number. As referenced above, the available metadata for those
photographs was produced in two excel spreadsheets with the same production - one with metadata for
nude images (which were contained on one of the hard drives you reviewed last week), and one with
metadata for non-nude images (which were produced in the November 9, 2020 discovery production). As I
mentioned in my email to Laura earlier today, I am working with our vendor to figure out how to best convey
to you which Bates numbers correspond with which rows in the spreadsheet.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00028573

=== Page 4 ===
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 11:10 PM
To: Christian Everdell
i
is
(USANYS)
Cc: 'Jeff Pagliuca'
>; Laura Menninger
>; Bobbi Sternheim
Subject: RE: Discovery Issues
Chris,
That all makes sense, thanks very much. I will reach back out once I have conferred with our vendor and have answers for
you on #3-#6.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
From: Christian Everdell
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 10:58 PM
To:
is
V.
(USANYS)
Cc: 'Jeff Pagliuca'
>; ; Laura Menninger
>; ; Bobbi Sternheim
(
Subject: RE: Discovery Issues
-
Apologies for the late response on this. It seems like it would be better to confer after you have heard back from your
vendor, since the answers to #3-#6 will depend on what the vendor says. And I believe we have now resolved #7.
As for #1 and #2, I will call
at MDC and represent to her that we have your concurrence to send the
drive directly to Ms. Maxwell. If she agrees, we can add the additional productions to our drive before we send it. If she
refuses, we will take it up with Judge Nathan.
Thanks,
Chris
EFTA00028574

=== Page 5 ===
From:
) [mailto:
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 3:36 PM
To: Christian Everdell;
);
(USANYS)
Cc: 'Jeff Pagliuca'; Laura Menninger; Bobbi Sternheim
(
)
Subject: RE: Discovery Issues
Chris,
We are available for a call to discuss tomorrow between 1pm and 2pm, between 3pm and 5pm, or after 5:30pm. Please
let us know if there is a time in those windows that would work on your end. In the meantime, below are some initial
responses:
1. Our supervisors have indicated that we are not permitted to send a drive that our IT department did not load to
the MDC. As a result, we cannot provide the drive directly to the MDC. That said, I am happy to join you in asking
the MDC to accept the drive from you. If the MDC still refuses, then my office would not object to an application to
Judge Nathan for an order directing the MDC to accept the drive from you, though we would need to allow MDC
legal counsel the opportunity to note their objections to Judge Nathan.
2. The MDC recently alerted us to this issue, and our paralegal converted the excel files at issue to pdfs and sent a
new CD with those pdfs to the MDC. If you client still cannot view them, then we are happy to load them to a drive
if you would like to provide one for us.
3. I have asked our vendor to look into this issue and will get back to you when I have spoken with them.
4. I have asked our vendor to look into this issue and will get back to you when I have spoken with them. That said,
similar to the note I sent in my email regarding highly confidential images on March 16, 2021, the electronic files
recovered from Epstein's devices have the same metadata on the hard drive that was available when the FBI seized
each file. For files that were carved or deleted, no metadata was recovered, so none is viewable, except for data
showing when a particular file was saved to a drive by the investigative team or prepared for production.
5. As indicated in our November 9, 2020 discovery letter, all images within Bates range SDNY_GM_00467566 though
SDNY_GM_00514100 were seized during the 2019 searches of Epstein residences. These are the images from the
CDs that were recovered during those searches, so they did not come from any of the electronic devices that were
the subject of extractions by CART. As a result, these images would not have CART numbers. As for the metadata, I
have asked our vendor to look into this issue and will get back to you when I have spoken with them.
6. I have asked our vendor to look into this issue and will get back to you when I have spoken with them. That said, I
note again that the electronic files recovered from Epstein's devices have the same metadata on the hard drive that
was available when the FBI seized each file. For files that were carved or deleted, no metadata was recovered, so
none is viewable. Additionally, as indicated in our November 9, 2020 discovery letter, all images within the
SDNY011 load file (Bates range SDNY_GM_00467566 though SDNY_GM_00514100) were seized during the 2019
searches of Epstein residences. These are the images from the CDs that were recovered during those searches, so
they did not come from any of the electronic devices that were the subject of extractions by CART. As a result,
these images would not have CART numbers.
7. I have asked our paralegals and vendor to look into the Bates gap and will get back to you when I have spoken to
them.
Best,
EFTA00028575

=== Page 6 ===
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
From: Christian Everdell
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 2:40 PM
To:
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc: 'Jeff Pagliuca'
>; Laura Menninger
>; Bobbi Sternheim
Subject: Discovery Issues
and
-
We write to raise a few issues concerning the discovery. Below is the list of items. Please let me know if you are free for a
call to discuss.
1. On our last call, we asked you if we could send our client a hard drive containing the discovery that we had created
(without the highly confidential items). You had said you would check to see if you could facilitate this. We have
not heard back from you. Are you able to send Ms. Maxwell the hard drive?
2. The last two productions you sent to Ms. Maxwell on disks. As you know, she cannot read disks on her laptop and
must use the prison computer. But the prison computer cannot read some of the files. We can include these files
on our hard drive to send to Ms. Maxwell. Otherwise, you will need to produce them on a hard drive. Please
advise which way you would like to proceed.
3. A number of the emails in the discovery - over 109,000 - were produced without their attachments (see tab 1 of
the attached Excel file). Instead, the attachments appear as slip-sheets (see example attached). Please provide the
missing attachments, if they exist.
4. A number of electronic documents - over 110,000 - that were extracted from one of Epstein's devices, as identified
by a CART number, have metadata that indicates a "date created" or "date last modified" date in July 2020 or
afterwards (see tab 2 of the attached Excel file). We request that you produce a metadata overlay with the original
metadata for these files.
5. A number of photographs - over 6500 - were produced in native format, but do not have a CART number and have
"date created" and/or "date last modified" dates after July 2019 (see tab 3 of the attached Excel file). Please
provide the CART number for these photographs or specify which device they came from. Also, we request that
you produce a metadata overlay with the original metadata for these files.
6. A number of the audio/visual files - over 460 - have similar metadata issues (see tab 4 of the attached Excel file).
These fall into the following buckets:
a. SDNY GM SUPP: these have CART numbers, but were produced without metadata load files and have
"date created" and "date last modified" dates in September-November 2020, after the date the device was
seized. We request that you produce a metadata overlay with the original metadata for these files.
b. SDNY005 (October 20, 2020 production): these are a few videos from the SDFL or PBPD investigations that
were produced in native form without metadata load files. They have Sept-Oct 2020 dates. We request that
you produce a metadata overlay with the original metadata for these files.
EFTA00028576

=== Page 7 ===
C. SDNY011 (November 9, 2020 production): these were produced in native form with load files, but do not
reference a CART number and have Sept 2020 dates. We request that you provide a CART number for these
files or indicate their source. Also, we request that you produce a metadata overlay with the original
metadata for these files.
7. There is a gap between 11/18 and 12/18 production numbers (SDNY_GM_02742044 to 2742183). Was that
intentional or are we missing those documents?
Please let us know your responses as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Chris
Christian R Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
view bio
www.cohengresser.com
New York
Paris
Washington DC
London
CG
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended to be reviewed initially by only
the individual named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify
the sender by telephone and permanently delete this e-mail. Thank you.
PRIVACY: A complete copy of our privacy policy can be viewed at: https://www.cohengresser.com/privacy-policy.
EFTA00028577


c1: EFTA00028207
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028207.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
)"
)"
,
)"
Subject: RE: Bail Oppo Draft
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2021 22:26:16 +0000
Attachments: Bail_Oppo_v2_(LP).docx
Onto
I also created a folder for this: \\Usa.doj.gov\cloud\NYS\StAndrews\Shared\USvEpstein-
government opposition to fourth motion for bail
From:
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 1:13 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
is
Subject: RE: Bail Oppo Draft
Team,
Only two small edits from me. I this goes to
next, and then to
This is due on Monday.
Thanks!
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 2:14 PM
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
Subject: Bail Oppo Draft
Submitted for your review! (I saved this locally on my comp, so I wouldn't mess up your shared organization)
Deputy Chief, Public Corruption Unit
Southern District of New York
Office:
Cell:
Email:
EFTA00028207


c1: EFTA00027375
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027375.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Robert Lewis
To:
Subject: Epstein --
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:11:08 +0000
Dear
I represent
,
a potential witness in your Epstein case. As you will recall, we spoke about Mr.
back in March, when you reached out to see if Mr.
would speak to you and we agreed that you could.
Although you have not contacted Mr.
,
I thought you should know about some recent developments.
For the last week or so the New York Times (Mike McIntire) has been aggressively reaching out to Mr.
,
Jesse Rose (his employment lawyer) and me (who represented him in the Maxwell case) by email and phone, as
well coming to Mr.
home twice. He is seeking our comments and information concerning the
and
Mr.
testimony in the Maxwell case.
According to McIntire, the Times is planning to run story on the
and their ties to Epstein. It also appears
that the Times has a copy of all or a portion of the deposition Mr.
gave in the Maxwell case, which is
troubling because it was subject to confidentiality in that case and, although the Second Circuit has ordered the
unsealing of the summary judgment papers (which likely include references to Mr.
deposition
testimony), no mandate has issued or documents been unsealed.
In addition, the Times tells us that a "representative" of the
has told it that Mr.
"lied" in his
deposition. If a representative did that, it is both defamatory and breaches a non-disparagement provision in the
settlement agreement with Mr.
The Times also informs that flight documents purportedly do not
corroborate certain portions of Mr.
deposition. We do not have access to those flight documents, but we
understand that Epstein's flight documentation is incomplete, if not materially inaccurate. Also pursuant to his
settlement of his employment dispute with the
Mr.
destroyed all of the documents he possessed
pertaining to the
which might corroborate some of his testimony,
We have rebuffed the Times' entreaties because of confidentiality obligations
has pursuant to a settlement
agreement in the employment case and the confidentiality order in the Maxwell case, as well as his desire to
avoid doing anything that would undermine your criminal prosecution.
Should you need or want a copy of Mr.
deposition transcript in the Maxwell case, we would provide it to
you pursuant to subpoena.
If you wish to discuss these matters, please do not hesitate to call.
Best regards,
Bob Lewis
ROBERT Y. LEWIS
Cell:
Direct Tel:
Fax:
www.freemanlewis.com
EFTA00027375

=== Page 2 ===
https://www.lawyers.com/n
ew-york/new-york/robert-y-
lewis-379752-a/?
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message and any attachment is confidential and may be
subject to the attorney-client privilege, or otherwise protected from disclosure by applicable law. Any disclosure, distribution,
copying, or use of the information contained in this message or any attachment by anyone other than the intended recipient,
regardless of address or routing, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender
and delete this message and any attachment from your system.
EFTA00027376


c1: EFTA00028666
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028666.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Ce:
Subject: SDNY NEWS CLIPS, NOVEMBER 4, 2020
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 18:12:29 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
OF
SDNY PRESS CLIPPINGS
ENTIRE
DISCOUNT
JUSTITIA
MAXWELL
POST: https://nypost.com/2020/11/03/two-epstein-victims-drop-cases-agginst-estate-ghislaine-maxwell/
SCHULTE:
AP: https://www.kob.com/national-news/june-retrial-date-set-for-ex-cia-engineer-in-leok-case/5915314/
MATTERS OF INTEREST
WAPO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/11/04/trump-court-election-count/
LAW.COM: https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/11/03/us-case-against-venezuelas-oil-minister-hits-another-snag,
USATODAY: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/1/03/fgcebook-twitter-trump-giulani-censorship-bias-biden-election-2020/6149742002/
LAW.COM: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/11/03/2nd-circuit-upholds-conviction-of-missour-ma-sentenced-to-10-years-in-poydoy-lending-scheme/
POLITICO: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/1-in-3-americans-lives-where-recreational-marijuano-legal-434004
WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-considers-life-without-pgrole-sentencing-for-juveniles-11604443211
PROPUBCAtps/www.propublia.org/article/robocallstld-at-least-8000-swing-state-residentsto-stay-home-or-election-daythe-fb-is-investigating
JD SUPRA: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/increased-threat-of-cybercrime-in-40588/
POLITCO:https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-defense/2020/11/04/defense-policy-in-limbo-as-election-drags-on-791386.
NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/nyregion/nj-prisoner-release-covid.html
WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-facebook-fined-by-turkey-for-breaching-low-aimed-at-curbing-dissent-1160450140
MEDIAITE: https://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/tramp-reportedly-teling-dvisers-hes-increasingly-spooked-atthe-prospect-of-beng-indicted-f-he-loses/utm_source-mostpopuia-
THE ECONOMIST:https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/11/03/despite-the-horrors-in-vienna-and-paris-jihadism-hos-declined-
EFTA00028666

=== Page 2 ===
C:https://www.ici.org/inside-icj/2020/11/goldman-sachs-1mdb-settlement-a-meaningful-punishment-for-mgjor-financial-crimes/
FOX: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/ex-nypd-commissioner-hundreds-of-protests-will-erupt-on-wednesday
SHORENEWS: https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/11/03/orlando-wealth-management-executive-charged-with-securities-fraud/
EFTA00028667


c1: EFTA00027714
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027714.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: Call with PAE re Epstein
Start Date: 2021-03-25 20:30:00 +0000
End Date: 2021-03-25 21:00:00 +0000
Location: Dial-in:
; Code:
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2021-03-25 20:03:04 +0000
Date Modified: 2021-03-25 20:03:04 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2021-03-25 19:42:18 +0000
Attendee:
)
EFTA00027714


c1: EFTA00028048
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028048.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject:
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 16:52:59 +0000
Between approximately 2002 and 2005,
scheduled dozens of appointments for underage girls to provide
massages to Epstein. The majority of these appointments took place at Epstein's Palm Beach residence.
occasionally scheduled appointments at Epstein's New York residence.
During that same time period, Epstein typically received approximately two massages per day-usually one in the
morning and one in the afternoon.
was primarily responsible for scheduling those appointments in Palm
Beach, but she occasionally scheduled them in New York.
When girls arrived for the appointments at Palm Beach,
sometimes met them, walked them up to the
massage room, and set up the massage table for the girls.
After at least some of the appointments,
paid the girls in cash.
During the massage appointments with minor girls that
scheduled, Epstein sexually abused the minor
girls by,
Through this process,
met dozens of underage victims, who ranged in age from 14 to 17 years old. Some
of those victims did not have licenses, and
arranged for a driver to pick them up. Some of those victims
told
they could not make certain appointment times because they had school. Epstein told
that at
least one of those victims was studying for the SATs.
At Epstein's direction,
took nude photos of underage victims.
walked in on at least one massage during which a victim was nude while massaging Epstein.
was present for one massage during which Epstein
walked in on one instance in which a
Epstein.
After learning about the investigation into Epstein,
called victims and encouraged them not to talk to law
enforcement. At Epstein's direction,
offered financial incentives to victims for not speaking with law
enforcement.
EFTA00028048


c1: EFTA00029269
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029269.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
To:
)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
)"
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - Request for Review Batches on Relativity
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 17:57:33 +0000
Hello,
The batches have been created and the tag has been added to the database. Please let me know if there are any
questions.
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 12:21 PM
To:
USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
Subject: US V. Maxwell - Request for Review Batches on Relativity
Hi Chris,
I hope you had a good weekend. The Maxwell team is now turning to review the SDFL documents that you helped get
loaded onto Relativity. Would you please help us get those documents batched out for review? Specifically, please break
down all of the documents in the folder entitled "USAO-SDFL Files" within the "US V Epstein" database into batches of
approximately 500 documents.
Would you please also add an Issue Designation tag entitled "Relevant to NPA" to the preexisting Issue Designation tags?
Thanks very much,
EFTA00029269


c1: EFTA00027929
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027929.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: Update Conference Call - Epstein
Start Date: 2019-08-13 13:30:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-08-13 14:00:00 +0000
Location: Dial-in below
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2019-08-13 00:29:23 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-08-13 00:29:23 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-08-13 00:15:01 +0000
Attendee:
EFTA00027929


c1: EFTA00027768
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027768.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
Subject: FW: quick update
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 00:00:05 +0000
Importance: High
Embedded: RE:
From:
)
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 14:54
To:
is
(NY) (FBI)
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: quick update
Importance: High
I just spoke to Stan again - unfortunately it continues to be a game of telephone (literally and figuratively), but he says
apparently
has been at the beach which is why we (and they) haven't been able to reach her. He says to keep trying
her, that she has no problem talking with us it's just an issue of logistics and getting in touch. He also confirmed we have
her correct number.
He also provided a number for
who they've spoken to and who is apparently willing to speak with us. If
we could schedule her for this coming Wednesday (or Tuesday or Thursday) as well, that would be fantastic. She's
apparently expecting our call, and her number is:
with apologies for asking this while you're off duty, could you please try them today, and over the weekend if you
don't connect with them immediately?
And separately, wanted to follow up on
- it was just last week we got the green light to call her, but wanted to
refresh that. The original email with her background info is attached, but her number is
I think she's safe
to call (in terms of keeping it confidential) and if we schedule her for the first or second week of June that would be great.
Thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 12:29
To:
Cc:
(NY) (FBI)
is
is
)
Subject: Re: quick update
Thanks for the update. As of yet we have not heard from
On May 24, 2019, at 12:24,
wrote:
I just left voicemails for
and
but just to keep everybody in the loop - I just spoke to Sid Garcia's office (he's
the attorney for
), they said that
can't do Tuesday next week and Sid can't do Thursday, so we're still aiming for
EFTA00027768

=== Page 2 ===
sometime Wednesday and they're going to call me back this afternoon as soon as possible to finalize a time. I stressed
that we have to finalize travel plans so the sooner the better.
I also spoke to Stan, who said that they'll try to reach out to
to ask her to call
He also said that
is willing to talk with us, and he said they would give her
number but would also try to get us her
number. With Stan also I stressed the time issue.
Will keep everybody posted as soon as I hear anything new.
thanks,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00027769


c1: EFTA00028484
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028484.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)
[Contractor]"
To:
)"
Subject: Epstein SW Scans
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 19:31:57 +0000
Attachments: 6571_SW_Application.pdf; 6571_SW.pdf; 6572_SW_Application.pdf;
6573_SW_Application.pdf; 6573_SW.pdf
Hey,
They are attached. The pagination on them is very weird, but they are scanned in the order they are stapled.
Thanks,
Paralegal Specialist
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Office:
Cell:
EFTA00028484


c1: EFTA00028323
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028323.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: NYT: Jeffrey Epstein's 'Infinite Means' May Be a Mirage
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:57:45 +0000
Importance: Normal
Curious as to the extent this is laying ground work for the bail argument we're going to see...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/business/jeffrey-epstein-net-worth.html?
fallback=0&recld=1NryEPEDefJ5pcoNbq69FcaKHd2&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion-DC&recAlloc=top_converst
on&geoCountry=US&blockld=most-
popular&imp_id=916858951&action=click&module=trending&pgtype=Article&region=Footer
EFTA00028323


c1: EFTA00027251
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027251.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
)"
"
,
)"
:
Subject: Fwd: Transcript Request-19CR00490
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 20:32:50 +0000
Attachments: J8RpEPSf.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: August 27, 2019 at 2:30:31 PM EDT
To: "
)"
Subject: Transcript Request-19CR00490
Hello:
Attached you will find a copy of Case No. 19-CR-490 as requested. Please confirm delivery.
Thank You,
EFTA00027251


c1: EFTA00028034
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028034.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] US V. Maxwell S2 20 Cr 330 (AJN)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 04:04:29 +0000
Attachments: ct_ltr.pdf
FYI
From: BOBBI C STERNHEIM
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 12:03 AM
To:
is
is
Cc: Christian Everdell
>; Laura Menninger
>; Jeff Pagliuca
^
Subject: [EXTERNAL] US V. Maxwell S2 20 Cr 330 (AJN)
Courtesy copy of tonight's ECF filing.
Please note my new office address and preferred email address:
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Main:
Cell:
Fax: 8
This message and any attached documents contain information from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim that may be
confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this
message. Thank you.
EFTA00028034


c1: EFTA00027955
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027955.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: Meeting with
on Epstein
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:57:01 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00027955


c1: EFTA00028827
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028827.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2,
Petitioners,
V.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
/
SEALED
DOCUMENT


c1: EFTA00027938
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027938.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Epstein Assistance Request
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 20:01:34 +0000
Attachments: 2019.08.18_MCC_Officer_Information.xlsx
Removing Lt.
The attached spreadsheet that she worked on over the weekend has almost all of this info.
Original Message
From:
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 3:59 PM
To:
Subject: Epstein Assistance Request
Can anyone advise as to the full names and possibly dates of birth for the following BOP employees?:
?
EFTA00027938

=== Page 2 ===
If we could have these by 5:30 it would help in piecing together some information for our analyst helping us
with the case
FBI/NYPD Violent Crimes & Joint Bank Robbery Squad C-19
EFTA00027939


c1: EFTA00028438
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028438.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To: Gloria Allred
Cc:
)"
Subject: RE: Wednesday
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:24:57 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image003.png; image004.jpg; image006.png; image007.jpg
Hi Gloria,
Do you have a sense yet of what time works for you and your client to come to our office tomorrow afternoon?
Thanks,
From: Gloria Allred
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 6:17 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Wednesday
I understand. I will let you know as soon as I hear from
Also, I am open to having the meeting later than 1P.M.
,because I scheduled that time prior to knowing about the status conference in the morning. Let me see what
wants
to do and then we can discuss the where and when and will work for you.
Gloria Allred
Allred, Maroko & Goldberg
6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles. CA 90048
www.amglaw.com
www.gloriaallred.com
ALLRED. MAROKO & GOLDBERG
2019
Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell
PREEMINENT
AV
Peer Rated for Highest Level
of Professional Excellence
2019
From:
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 3:09 PM
To: Gloria Allred
Cc:
Subject: RE: Wednesday
Hi Gloria,
Thanks for letting us know about the possible meeting location change- please let us know once you've been able to
confirm with your client, and we can let
know so that she can cancel the car service.
EFTA00028438

=== Page 2 ===
Regarding the court conference, we are unfortunately not able to reserve seats for anyone-the court manages court
security and the crowd, so we don't have control over that. The other victim attorneys have been attending the
conferences on their own, and although I don't know, I would guess that means that they have been arriving early.
Thanks,
From: Gloria Allred
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 6:00 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Wednesday
Thank you very much for this information. I plan to attend this court this status conference on Wednesday. I am
concerned that the courtroom may be full and no seat will be available for me. Would you be kind enough to have
someone on your staff save a seat for me? Also, since the courthouse is very close to your office I have emailed
to
ask if she would be willing to meet at your office instead of at my hotel at 1P.M.Since her hotel is near to your office and
near the courthouse and since I will be in the area now as well, if she feels comfortable meeting at your office instead of
my hotel I am willing to meet at your office to save you and her the time to travel to my hotel. I will let you know when
she responds.
Gloria Allred
Allred, Maroko & Goldberg
6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90048
www.amglaw.com
www.gloriaallred.com
ALLRED. MAROKO & GOLDBERO
2019
Best Lawyers
Martindale
PREEMINENT
AV
Peer Rated for Highest Level
of Professional Excellence
2019
From:
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 1:50 PM
To: Gloria Allred
Subject: RE: Wednesday
Hi Gloria,
Yes-in this district, criminal defendants are present at all court conferences absent unusual circumstances.
From: Gloria Allred
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 4:46 PM
To:
Subject: Wednesday
EFTA00028439

=== Page 3 ===
I see that a status conference is scheduled for Mr. Epstein 's criminal case in court in New York at 11A.M.on Wednesday
,July 31. Do you know if Mr. Epstein will be present for the status conference in court on Wednesday?
Gloria Allred
Allred, Maroko & Goldberg
6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90048
www.amglaw.com
www.gloriaallred.com
ALLRED. MAROKO & GOLDBERD
2019
Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell'
PREEMINENT
AV
Peer Rated for Highest Level
of Professional Excellence
2019
This message is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the
addressee you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
ABOVE AT 323-653-6530. Thank you.
This message is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the
addressee you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
ABOVE AT 323-653-6530. Thank you.
This message is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the
addressee you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
ABOVE AT 323-653-6530. Thank you.
EFTA00028440


c1: EFTA00028088
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028088.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov" <cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov>
To:
Subject: 19-2221 United States of America V. Epstein "Notice of Appearance for Additional or Substitute
Counsel FILED"
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 18:31:53 +0000
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits
attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of
all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees
apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first
viewing.
Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was filed on 08/05/2019
Case Name:
United States of America V. Epstein
Case Number: 19-2221
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellant Jeffrey Epstein, FILED.
Service date 08/05/2019 by CM/ECF. [2624301] [19-2221]
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Notice will be stored in the notice cart for:
Deputy Clerk
Quality Control 1
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: Notice of Appearance for Additional or Substitute Counsel FILED
Original Filename: Epstein_MGW Notice of Appearance for Additional Counsel_final.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1161632333 [Date=08/05/2019] [FileNumber=2624301-0]
[6b51395399767c76066ebaa6e82ddaea29df03471242fd2ffc46ff74f3e47a2a886155ec2ca3cd79ab81ec9f36e96b5
10a17a0b40413e7b0c99b6bc4dcfedcd4]]
EFTA00028088


c1: EFTA00028216
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028216.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===

=== Page 2 ===

=== Page 3 ===

=== Page 4 ===

=== Page 5 ===

=== Page 6 ===

=== Page 7 ===

=== Page 8 ===

=== Page 9 ===

=== Page 10 ===

=== Page 11 ===

=== Page 12 ===

=== Page 13 ===

=== Page 14 ===

=== Page 15 ===

=== Page 16 ===

=== Page 17 ===

=== Page 18 ===

=== Page 19 ===

=== Page 20 ===

=== Page 21 ===

=== Page 22 ===

=== Page 23 ===

=== Page 24 ===

=== Page 25 ===

=== Page 26 ===

=== Page 27 ===

=== Page 28 ===

=== Page 29 ===

=== Page 30 ===

=== Page 31 ===

=== Page 32 ===

=== Page 33 ===

=== Page 34 ===

=== Page 35 ===

=== Page 36 ===

=== Page 37 ===

=== Page 38 ===

=== Page 39 ===

=== Page 40 ===

=== Page 41 ===


c1: EFTA00029487
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029487.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Phone Call Follow-Up
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 20:15:45 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
Not good.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 2:45 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: FW: Phone Call Follow-Up
We will most likely not meet the November 9 deadline.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 2:41 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Phone Call Follow-Up
Thanks,
The problem is the stuff that is coming today is stuff the team asked PAE to process in early September. I
realize that this is a big project and that there's only so much that can be done, but it poses almost insurmountable timing
hurdles for our team if it is taking 1-2 months for PAE to get us stuff we ask for out of Relativity. In most of our cases, this
one included, that eats up a huge chunk of the time we have available to produce discovery.
We'll follow up early next week to see if there is a more concrete update, but I think this may require a broader or higher
level explanation to the Court. I am concerned about requiring our team to take the hit with Judge Nathan for missing
this deadline.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 12:51 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: FW: Phone Call Follow-Up
Some of the data is being sent to use today by FedEX. However, there is a ton of stuff still being processed. That stuff is
still being imaged. Then it gets marked. Then copied to us. I have spoken to
He thinks it is not possible to
meet the November 9 date. He thinks the next step might be done on Tuesday, and then a better estimate of completion
might be possible.
From: Koontz, Nicholas [US]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 12:25 PM
To:
(USANYS)
>
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: Phone Call Follow-Up
Good Afternoon
EFTA00029487

=== Page 2 ===
Following up on our earlier phone conversation, a hard drive with the following productions is being sent to SDNY via
FedEx with the following productions in the US V. Epstein workspace:
1) SDNYPROD008
2) SDNYPROD009
3) SDNYPROD010
4) SDNYPROD011 (Note: this is a six-part production)
5) SDNYPROD012
6) SDNYPROD013
7) SDNYPROD014
There are approximately 1.2 million records currently being imaged. The images will be available on Monday, November
2, 2020 at the earliest. The production of the records will begin as soon as the images are available in the workspace.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Nick
Nicholas D. Koontz
Lead E-Discovery Analyst
e.
Falls Church, Virginia 22043
PAE
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this message may be privileged, business sensitive, proprietary,
copyrighted, protected from disclosure and/or subject to US export controls. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer. #-SEC-#
EFTA00029488


c1: EFTA00028560
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028560.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Prince Andrew
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 18:34:56 +0000
Glad to hear that. Things here are fine. No news.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 8, 2020, at 2:32 PM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
I'm still good! Nothing new to report! And yourself?
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 2:29 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Prince Andrew
Greetings. Just checking-in to see how you're doing.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 1:58 PM
To: Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
Subject: RE: Prince Andrew
All, we can use the following dial in: 877-720-9282 - 8146826
From: Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 1:54 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
Subject: Re: Prince Andrew
Let's set up a call on this for 2:15
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 8, 2020, at 1:09 PM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
EFTA00028560

=== Page 2 ===
Geoff - As discussed, I've put together a short proposed statement responding to the press release issued by Prince
Andrew's counsel this morning. If we do issue something in response, as you'll see, I would recommend we keep it
short and forward looking, rather than trying to rehash all of the various factual inaccuracies in his account of the
past.
Today, Prince Andrew yet again sought to falsely publicly portray himself as leager and willing to cooperate with an
ongoing federal criminal investigation into sex trafficking and related offenses committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his
associates, despite the fact that the Prince has never sat for an interview with federal authorities, has repeatedly
declined our request to schedule such an interview, and several months ago informed us unequivocally - through the
very same counsel who issued today's release -- that he would not come in for such an interview. If Prince Andrew is,
in fact, serious about cooperating with a federal investigation, our doors have always been open, and we await word of
when we should expect him.
EFTA00028561


c1: EFTA00027860
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027860.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To: "Strauss, Audrey (USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Friendly Subpoena to
Attorney
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 23:16:26 +0000
Thanks very much.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2021, at 7:16 PM, Strauss, Audrey (USANYS)
wrote:
Approved
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2021, at 12:05 PM,
)
wrote:
Hi Audrey,
The Maxwell team would like to send the attached "friendly subpoena" to
attorney
During our interviews in Florida,
informed me that he has a copy of the settlement agreement between
and Epstein, which resolved
2009 civil suit against Epstein.
is willing to provide us with a copy of the
agreement, but he indicated that he believes he needs a subpoena before he can do so. His firm has already provided
us with copies of all other court filings and deposition transcripts from the civil case voluntarily. The settlement
agreement resolving the case is relevant to our ongoing investigation into Maxwell's participation in the abuse of
and other underage girls.
Thanks,
<2021.03.26, subpoena to
EFTA00027860


c1: EFTA00028782
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028782.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From
To:
Subject: Travel Authorization
approved by
, now awaiting further
approval
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 16:45:21 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Travel authorization
has been approved by
, now awaiting further approval.
Trip ID:
Traveler name:
Purpose:
- U.S. V. Epstein - Witness Interviews
Destination: West Palm Beach, FL, United States
Dates: 2019-11-04 - 2019-11-04
Current status: Pending Authorization Approval
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# T0007
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00028782


c1: EFTA00027157
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027157.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
To:
Cc:
Subject: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/nyregion/epstein-suicide-deathhtml
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 12:19:43 +0000
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00027157


c1: EFTA00028836
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028836.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To: "Weinstein, Marc A."
Subject: Tentative: Epstein estate
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:24:11 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00028836


c1: EFTA00028444
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028444.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: RE: search warrant application (USAVI)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 21:25:32 +0000
We've been in touch with the U.S. Attorney's Office in USVI to coordinate the legal logistic on a search warrant, and they
just sent the below information on possible coordination with Fish and Wildlife, so sending it to you FYI in case you want
to reach out.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 17:12
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: RE: search warrant application (USAVI)
Good afternoon again
After discussing this matter with my USA Gretchen Shappert, I was asked to advise you that Fish and
Wildlife recently conducted a flyover and close-in surveillance of the Great St. James islands, and can be of
great assistance in the search of property. USA Shappert recommended that you contact Fish and Wildlife
at:
SAC
Office of Law Enforcement
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, GA 30345
USA Shappert also advised that she was contacted by the NY Times regarding Epstein's property, and has
learned that they are sending a reporter down here next week.
Thanks,
EFTA00028444

=== Page 2 ===
From:
(USAVI)
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 4:14 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: RE: search warrant application (USAVI)
Good afternoon
It was a pleasure to assist you. I am available to help in any way possible, so please do not hesitate to
contact me for further assistance. I can be reached at
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:59 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: search warrant application (USAVI)
Following up on our phone conversation a few minutes ago, thank you again for speaking with me and explaining the
search warrant process in your District. I understand we should plan to send you a copy of the affidavit (and any exhibits
or other incorporated materials) and the Indictment, and you will let us know if there are any additional questions or
follow-up on your end. I understand your magistrate judge will then review the application, and that she's available
Monday through Friday (or weekends if necessary), and that if and when an application is approved it must be sworn
before her in person.
Our hope is to be in touch with you in the coming days, with the possibility of the agents executing the search this
weekend, but we will keep in touch about that. And so you have the full contact information for all of our team, my
colleagues and I are reachable anytime at these email addresses or by phone at:
Please let me know if any other information would be useful at this stage, otherwise we'll expect to be in touch with you
in the coming days.
thanks,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00028445


c1: EFTA00027291
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027291.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Epstein Documents from BOP without Green Watermark
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:36:15 +0000
Hi
We requested these from the BOP, and they provided a set of documents, which we then produced to defense counsel.
We did not do a page by page comparison between the redacted set and the unredacted set, so we can't guarantee that
they are "comprehensive." But we can provide you with what we have, assuming that there aren't any issues with us
sharing in that way.
Best,
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 12:27 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: Epstein Documents from BOP without Green Watermark
Nick and
I recall that at some point you requested a version of the Epstein FOIA documents from BOP without the translucent
green watermark they put on the withheld documents. Do you have those saved down somewhere? Although the Court
has not put in a specific order yet, I think it's likely that we'll need to produce documents without the translucent green
marking to the Court. I have versions without the watermark for some of the docs, but it looks like not all. Do you have a
comprehensive set somewhere?
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
300 Quarropas Street
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone:
EFTA00027291


c1: EFTA00027240
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027240.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Sources: Jeffrey Epstein dies by suicide in Manhattan jail I abc7.com
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 13:05:01 +0000
https://abc7.com/sources-jeffrey-epstein-dies-by-suicide-in-manhattan-jail/5457853/
EFTA00027240


c1: EFTA00028332
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028332.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Jean James
To:
Subject: Fwd: VIDEO CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING - JEFFREY EPSTEIN CONNECTIONS
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 03:52:52 +0000
From: "Jean James"
Sent: Wednesday, 10 July, 2019 09:26:21
Subject: VIDEO CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING - JEFFREY EPSTEIN CONNECTIONS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc-uysS6Tlw
A well-known Prime Minister: https://globalnews.ca/news/5470729/jeffey-epstein-charges-prime-minister/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc-uysS6Tlw
UNITED KINGDOM https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=988850561267325
Jon Wedger Foundation
I am a retired Police Detective with over 25 years service in the investigation into child abuse. I was threatened and bullied out of my job
for exposing the high-level cover-up of child prostitution. For the past eight years, I have been working with anti-child abuse campaigner
Bill Maloney in raising awareness of the true extent of the scale of this heinous crime. I, now with other whistleblowing cops as well as
victims and survivors of abuse, am campaigning for a change in the Law to give brave whistleblowers the protection they truly deserve. In
the words of Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Since I stood up and exposed the vile crimes against children (which were suppressed for decades), I faced a sustained and aggressive
onslaught designed not just to silence me but to ultimately destroy me.
This attack strengthened my resolve, and I embarked on a journey where I have met brave, kind, compassionate individuals comprised of
fellow whistleblowers, victims, and survivors of abuse. If whistleblowers do not receive adequate, independent, and secure protection then
the horrific abuse of society's most vulnerable and precious members will continue.
I graciously and respectfully ask that you back my campaign. Thank you to everyone who have already generously donated. Please
continue supporting justice by donating to our ongoing cause.
Links to my recent press newspaper, video interviews and articles can be viewed via my website. Click onto the images below to view
more information relating to this website and to shed light onto an epidemic issue, that we together can expose and bring justice to. Thank
you. God Bless. Jon. https://www.jonwedgerfoundation.org/
EFTA00028332

=== Page 2 ===
EFTA00028333


