# docs_fts_content

c1: EFTA00028753
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028753.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 17:25:17 +0000
Attachments: U.S._v._Ghislaine_Maxwell_Indictment.pdf; Ghislaine_Maxwell_Indictment_PR.pdf
Inline-Images: image001.png
Hearty congratulations on this important step guys. Well done.
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 ENITED 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.
EFTA00028753

=== 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
EFTA00028754

=== 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.
EFTA00028755


c1: EFTA00028785
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028785.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 1 of 14
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 12, 2019
VIA ECF
The Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:
United States V. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB)
Dear Judge Berman:
The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the defendant's Motion for
Pretrial Release (the "Release Motion"), dated July 11, 2019 (Dkt. 6), and in further support of its
Memorandum in Support of Detention (the "Detention Memo"), submitted to Magistrate Judge
Pitman on July 8, 2019, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. A).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The defendant is a serial sexual predator who is charged with abusing underage girls for
years. A grand jury has returned an indictment alleging that he sexually exploited dozens of
minors, including girls as young as 14 years old, in New York and Florida. To this day, he is a
registered sex offender designated by New York State in the highest category of risk to reoffend,
despite unsuccessfully attempting to have that classification lowered. And any doubt that the
defendant is unrepentant and unreformed was eliminated when law enforcement agents discovered
hundreds or thousands of nude and seminude photographs of young females in his Manhattan
mansion on the night of his arrest, more than a decade after he was first convicted of a sex crime
involving a juvenile.
The defendant also faces substantial evidence of his guilt, founded on the corroborated
testimony of numerous victims, and this case presents the very real possibility that he will go to
prison for the rest of his life. The defendant has at his disposal a vast fortune, the details of which
remain largely concealed from the Court. He also has a history of obstruction and manipulation
of witnesses, including, as detailed herein, as recently as within the past year, when media reports
about his conduct reemerged. And he continues to show a shocking lack of understanding of the
gravity of the harm he has perpetrated, including through the minimization of his conduct and
casual disparagement of victims in his arguments.
Against this backdrop of significant-and rapidly-expanding-evidence, serious charges,
and the prospect of a lengthy prison sentence, the defendant proposes to be released on conditions
that are woefully inadequate. The Release Motion misconstrues and misunderstands the relevant
EFTA00028785

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 2 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 2
law, seeks to diminish and demean the harm caused to the many victims of the defendant's
appalling sexual abuse, and utterly fails to meet its burden of rebutting the presumption that no
condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as
required and the safety of the community. Rather than even attempting to address the grave risks
of releasing a defendant with extraordinary financial resources and a history of abusing minors,
the defendant instead proposes a bail package that amounts to little more than a barely-secured
bond masquerading as a 14-point plan. The Court should reject the defendant's application and
order him detained pending trial.
Among other things, the proposed bail package contemplates the defendant pledging as the
principal security a property that has already been identified by the Government as subject to
forfeiture upon the defendant's conviction, and which therefore is of no value as collateral. His
proposed global waiver of extradition is unenforceable, and even if enforceable would be little
comfort to victims forced to wait additional years while the defendant is located and returned to
this country. The promise to "deregister or otherwise ground" his private jet is meaningless given
his wealth and ability to easily secure other means of travel. The two co-signers he proposes only
further highlight his minimal community ties, including his lack of any family in or near the
District. Electronic monitoring would merely give the defendant less of a head start in fleeing-
and does not guard against the risk of him endangering victims in the very home where he has
continued to hoard nude images of young women and girls. And the private security force he
proposes to guard his gilded cage, a proposal already rejected by this Court in similar
circumstances, simply reinforces the obvious fact that the defendant should be housed where he
can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center.
The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended
detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions
short of incarceration that can reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant or reasonably
protect the community from the dangers he poses if released, the Court should order him detained.
BACKGROUND
As previously set forth, a federal grand jury in this District returned an indictment (the
"Indictment") charging the defendant with violating Title 18, United States Code Section 1519,
and conspiracy to commit the same.
As charged by the grand jury, the facts giving rise to those counts involve a years-long
scheme to sexually abuse underage girls. Specifically, the defendant enticed and recruited dozens
of minor girls to engage in sex acts with him, for which he paid the victims hundreds of dollars in
cash, in at least two different states. Victims were initially recruited to provide "massages" to the
defendant, which would be performed nude or partially nude, would become increasingly sexual
in nature, and would typically include one or more sex acts, including groping and direct or indirect
contact with victims' genitals. To perpetuate this exploitation of underage girls, the defendant
actively encouraged certain victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly sexually abused. He
paid these victim-recruiters hundreds of dollars for each additional girl they brought to him,
creating a network of underage victims for him to exploit in New York and Palm Beach.
EFTA00028786

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 3 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 3
The defendant, through counsel, continues to evidence a complete lack of appreciation for
the gravity of the offenses with which he is charged.¹ As an initial matter, there can be no plausible
suggestion that the allegations against the defendant involve isolated or aberrational conduct; they
involve repeated, regular acts of sexual abuse committed over a period of many years. And
following the defendant's prior conviction, as described previously by the Government, the
defendant continued to maintain at least hundreds and possibly thousands of nude photos of young
subjects. The defendant's victims in this case, often particularly vulnerable girls, were as young
as 14 years old when he abused them. The defendant knew he was abusing minors, including
because victims told him directly they were underage. And he preyed on his victims habitually
and repeatedly-day after day, month after month, year after year.
The defense calls these disturbing alleged acts "simple prostitution."² Mag. Tr. 12:12; see
also D. Tr. at 6:15-19 ("This is basically the Feds today
redoing the same conduct that was
investigated 10 years ago and calling it, instead of prostitution, calling it sex trafficking"). That
characterization is not only offensive but also utterly irrelevant given that federal law does not
recognize the concept of a child prostitute-there are only trafficking victims-because a child
cannot legally consent to being exploited. Defense counsel's repeated assertion that the
Government's case is infirm because no threats or coercion are alleged-e.g., Mag. Tr. at 12
("There was no coercion. There were no threats. There was no violence."), 17 ("there was no
coercion. There was no intimidation. There is no deception."); Release Motion at 2 ("There are
no allegations
that he forced, coerced, defrauded, or enslaved anybody
")-is equally
irrelevant because the offense with which the defendant has been charged requires no such proof.
See, e.g., United States V. Afyare, 632 F. App'x 272, 278 (6th Cir. 2016) ("We hold that $ 1591(a)
criminalizes the sex trafficking of children (less than 18 years old) with or without any force, fraud,
or coercion, and it also criminalizes the sex trafficking of adults (18 or older), but only if done by
force, fraud, or coercion.").
Far more important, the defense has already effectively conceded that the Government will
be able to present evidence of the actual primary elements of the charged offense-i.e., that the
defendant engaged in sex acts for money with girls he knew were underage. See Release Motion
at 2. On this record, the Government agrees with Pretrial Services that the defendant should be
detained pending trial. He poses a tremendous risk of flight and a danger to the community, and
he cannot overcome the statutory presumption in favor of detention in this case.
I Such arguments are unsurprising from a defendant who previously compared himself to a "person
who steals a bagel" or a tragic mythical figure. See, e.g., Amber Southerland, Billionaire Jeffrey
Epstein: I'm a sex offender, not a predator, N.Y. Post (2011) ("I'm not a sexual predator, I'm an
"offender," the financier told The Post yesterday. 'It's the difference between a murderer and a
person who steals a bagel. "); Philip Weiss, The Fantasist, NY Magazine (2007) ("It's the Icarus
story, someone who flies too close to the sun,' I said. 'Did Icarus like massages?' Epstein asked.").
2 "Mag. Tr." refers to the transcript of the hearing before Magistrate Judge Pitman on July 8, 2019;
"D. Tr." refers to the transcript of the hearing before this Court on July 8, 2019.
EFTA00028787

=== Page 4 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 4 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 4
ARGUMENT
The Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot overcome the statutory
presumption in favor of detention in this case for the following reasons, among others:
I.
Victims Seek Detention
Pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), a crime victim has the right to be
reasonably heard at certain public proceedings in the district court, including proceedings
involving release. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). Consistent with that requirement, the Government has
been in contact with victims and counsel identified through this investigation in connection with
the argument regarding bail.
Multiple victims and/or their counsel have asked the Government to seek detention (and to
inform the Court of their views in that respect) for multiple reasons. First, they believe that the
defendant's continued detention is necessary under the CVRA's right to be reasonably protected
from the accused. 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a)(1). They have specifically conveyed to the Government
that they would be fearful for their safety if the defendant were released. For the reasons articulated
herein, the Government believes those concerns to be well-founded.
Additionally, certain victims have asked the Government to advise the Court that they are
specifically concerned about the defendant's proposal to be released even if under conditions that
included home detention and full-time private guards. They believe it would be unfair to victims
of a wealthy defendant, like Epstein, if he were to be given greater freedoms than others would be
in similar circumstances, and that such an arrangement would be inconsistent with their rights.
They specifically asked the Government to advise the Court that they believed such an arrangement
could result in harassment and abuse by the defendant. 3
II.
The Defendant's Proposal Does Nothing to Mitigate His Flight Risk
Each of the relevant factors to be considered as to flight risk-the nature and circumstances
of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant-
counsel strongly in favor of detention, and the defendant's proposed package would do nothing
whatsoever to mitigate those risks.
A. Defendant Proposes No Infringement Upon His Ability to Use his Vast Wealth to Flee
It might not be immediately apparent to a reader of the Release Motion that the defendant
is extravagantly wealthy and worth, according to records relating to the defendant recently
obtained by the Government from a financial institution ("Institution-1"), more than $500 million.
3 The Government is aware of at least one additional attorney for a victim who has publicly stated
that her client supports the pretrial detention of the defendant. The Government is unaware of any
victim who has expressed support for the defendant being granted pretrial release on bail.
EFTA00028788

=== Page 5 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 5 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 5
Indeed, while the defendant has still not filled out a financial affidavit, under penalty of
perjury, in connection with his application for bail, his token effort to account for his finances
makes painfully clear the need for detention. The defendant reports having an extraordinary
amount of money in both total assets and cash or cash-equivalent holdings. And while the
defendant repeatedly represents in his Release Motion that his assets are "in the United States,"
there is absolutely nothing in the defendant's minimal financial submission to verify that.
Indeed, and as discussed further below, even assuming the defendant's assets are presently
in the United States, nothing in the proposed package would prevent the defendant from
transferring liquid assets out of the country quickly and in anticipation of flight or relocation. The
defendant is an incredibly sophisticated financial actor with decades of experience in the industry
and significant ties to financial institutions and actors around the world. He could easily transfer
funds and holdings on a moment's to places where the Government would never find them so as
to ensure he could live comfortably while a fugitive.
But perhaps most important, even were the defendant to sacrifice literally all of his current
assets, there is every indication that he would immediately be able to resume making millions or
tens of millions of dollars per year outside of the United States. He already earns at least
$10,000,000 per year, according to records from Institution-1, while living in the U.S. Virgin
Islands, traveling extensively abroad, and residing in part in Paris, France; there would be little to
stop the defendant from fleeing, transferring his unknown assets abroad, and then continuing to do
whatever it is he does to earn his vast wealth from a computer terminal beyond the reach of
extradition.
That the defendant faces up to 45 years of incarceration on the current counts with which
he is charged provides the motive for him do so and is another significant factor in assessing the
risk of flight. See United States V. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir. 1987). So too is the strength of
the evidence, detailed above and in the Government's Detention Memo. Indeed, that evidence,
already robust less than a week ago when the Indictment was unsealed, is growing stronger by the
day. Just since the Indictment was unsealed, several additional women, in multiple jurisdictions,
have identified themselves to the Government as having been victimized by the defendant when
they were minors. Moreover, pursuant to judicially-authorized search warrants, the Government
has discovered and seized a significant volume of photographs of nude and seminude young
women and girls in the defendant's Manhattan residence, and is in the process of reviewing dozens
of electronic discs that contain still more such photos. And dozens of individuals have called the
Government in recent days to convey information regarding the defendant and the allegations
4 As noted in the Government's Detention Memo, the defendant is a frequent traveler and regularly
travels to and from the United States, including approximately more than 20 flights in which he
traveled to or from a foreign country since 2018 alone. Extensive international travel of this nature
further demonstrates a significant risk of flight. See, e.g., United States V. Anderson, 384 F. Supp.
2d 32, 36 (D.D.C. 2005).
5 The Government's review of these materials, seized earlier this week, remains ongoing.
EFTA00028789

=== Page 6 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 6 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 6
contained in the Indictment. All this in less than a week, and all in addition to an Indictment that
already alleges the existence of dozens of victims in New York and dozens of victims in Florida.
B. The Proposed Bond is Inadequate to Overcome the Presumption of Detention
The defendant's "slate of highly restrictive" measures which purportedly "amply suffice to
secure his release" are neither highly restrictive nor amply sufficient. Rather, they are effectively
standard conditions of home confinement, monitoring, and bond unsecured by the defendant's
assets-broken out into 14 pieces. The Government will address the most concerning and salient
elements of the defendant's proposal below.
1. Lack of Meaningful Bond Security
The defendant proposes that the Court accept his Manhattan mansion as the primary
security for a personal recognizance bond of an indeterminate amount, to be co-signed by the
defendant's brother and a friend. Release Motion at 4. This is plainly insufficient.
As an initial matter, and as noted above, the defendant's Manhattan mansion has been
identified in the Indictment as subject to forfeiture because it is alleged to have been used to
commit or facilitate the commission of the sex trafficking offenses charged there. See 18 U.S.C.
$ 1594(c)(1). Because the defendant would thus be likely to lose that property following a
conviction, it provides no value whatsoever as collateral. See 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(g)(4) ("In
considering the conditions of release described
the judicial officer
shall decline to accept
the designation, or the use as collateral, of property that, because of its source, will not reasonably
assure the appearance of the person as required."). And while the defendant offers to also pledge
his private jet as additional collateral, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the defendant
would not readily trade his private plane for his freedom. Indeed, the defendant, who has a net
worth of more than $500 million, by his own admission recently sold a second plane and thus
presumably has cash on hand to replace the posted aircraft without difficulty if need be.
Nor does the proposed security of properties owned by two identified co-signers
meaningfully change the calculus. As further described below, the defendant provides no
information about the value or equity of the property of his brother, Mark (the "Palm Beach
Property"), or the significance of that property in the context of his brother's own net worth.6
Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr.
Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr.
Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the defendant's proffered net worth, the
defendant could easily make his co-signers whole - and even reward them - were he to flee.
The proposed security, in sum, should give the Court little comfort the defendant would
appear in Court if released on bail.
6 In fact, the defendant's own submission makes clear that the Palm Beach Property is not his
brother's exclusive residence and that his brother lives elsewhere for half of the year.
EFTA00028790

=== Page 7 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 7 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 7
2. Co-Signers, Moral Suasion, and Ties to the Community
The dearth of detailed financial information about the defendant himself, much less his
brother or friend, further shows the hollowness of the proposal. The Court cannot possibly
evaluate whether there would be any incentive whatsoever for those the two proposed co-signers
to exercise moral suasion over the defendant-or whether, as noted above, the defendant could
easily compensate them, perhaps many times over, for any loss they incurred through the
defendant's flight from justice. The defendant provides no information about his brother other
than that he lives half the year in the home he purportedly would pledge, and even less information
about Mr. Mitchell, other than that he is "Mr. Epstein's friend," his "close personal friend of
decades," and his "close personal friend." Release Motion at 4, 9. Their willingness to "guarantee"
his appearance, Release Motion at 9, is meaningless in the absence of such information.
Moreover, the notion that any individual co-signer could meaningfully secure a bond for
this defendant strains credulity. Given the defendant's wealth and his extraordinary risk of flight,
any bond for this defendant would assuredly have to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars to
even be claimed to be sufficient to guard against the risks posed by the defendant's release. The
defendant offers no reason to believe any co-signers could meaningfully sign such a bond, much
less these two particular individuals, which is yet another reason the proposed package is patently
insufficient.
3. The Defendant's "Consent" to Extradition is Unenforceable and Impractical
The defendant's offer to sign a so-called "consent" to extradition provides no additional
reassurance whatsoever. As an initial matter, the Government would need to find and re-arrest the
defendant before such a waiver would even come into play. Moreover, even assuming the
Government could locate and apprehend the defendant, numerous courts have recognized that such
purported waivers are unenforceable and effectively meaningless because any defendant who signs
such a purported waiver and then flees will assuredly contest the validity and/or voluntariness of
the waiver, and will get to do so in the jurisdiction of his choosing (i.e., the one to which he chose
to flee). See, e.g., United States V. Morrison, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y.
Dec. 23, 2016); United States V. Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at *3 (D. Or. Aug.
3, 2015); United States V. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300, at *7 (D. Utah
Aug. 27, 2013); United States V. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n.11 (N.D.
Cal. Dec. 20, 2010); United States V. Bohn, 330 F. Supp. 2d 960, 961 (W.D. Tenn. 2004); United
States V. Stroh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000); United States
V. Botero, 604 F. Supp. 1028, 1035 (S.D. Fla. 1985). The Department of Justice's Office of
International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an
anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And, of course, the defendant could choose to flee to a
jurisdiction with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty.
Beyond being impossible to guarantee, extradition is typically a lengthy, complicated and
expensive process, and the possibility that it would be successful neither provides any real
deterrent to the defendant's incentive to flee nor any measure of justice to the victims who would
be required to wait years for his return.
EFTA00028791

=== Page 8 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 8 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 8
4. Home Confinement and Electronic Monitoring Provide No Assurance
The defendant's proposal of ankle-bracelet monitoring should be of no comfort to the
Court. In particular, the defendant's endorsement of a GPS monitoring bracelet rather than a radio
frequency bracelet is farcical because neither one is useful or effective after it has been removed.
At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce his head start should he decide
to cut the bracelet and flee. See United States V. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention
with electronic monitoring "at best
limits a fleeing defendant's head start"); see also United
States V. Casteneda, No. 18 Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United
States V. Anderson, 384 F. Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States V. Benatar, No. 02
Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same).
5. Private Security is Inadequate, Unfair, and Impractical Here
The defendant also proposes the use of a private security force to march him to and from
court under the threat of deadly force. This proposal should be rejected.
At the outset, it is far from clear that private jail, which seeks to replicate the conditions of
a government-run detention facility in the defendant's home, is a condition of "release" that
implicates the Bail Reform Act. "[T]here is a debate within the judiciary over whether a defendant,
if she is able to perfectly replicate a private jail in her own home at her own cost, has a right to do
so under the Bail Reform Act and the United States Constitution." United States V. Valerio, 9 F.
Supp. 3d 283, 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Bianco, J.) (collecting cases). The Second Circuit has never
directly addressed this issue. See United States V. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 78 n.18 (2d Cir. 2007)
("The government has not argued and, therefore, we have no occasion to consider whether it would
be "contrary to the principles of detention and release on bail' to allow wealthy defendants 'to buy
their way out by constructing a private jail." (citations omitted)). Indeed, a decision by this Court
reasoned that "the very severe restrictions" in the private jail proposal presented to him did "not
appear to contemplate 'release' so much as it describes a very expensive form of private jail or
detention." United States V. Zarrab, 2016 WL 3681423, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016).
Courts have long been troubled by private jail proposals like the defendant's which, "at
best "elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility
instills." United States V. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States V. Gotti,
776 F. Supp. 666, 672 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (rejecting private jail proposal)); see also Valerio, 9 F.
Supp. 3d at 295 ("The questions about the legal authorization for the private security firm to use
force against defendant should he violate the terms of his release, and the questions over whether
the guards can or should be armed, underscore the legal and practical uncertainties-indeed, the
imperfections-of the private jail-like concept envisioned by defendant, as compared to the more
secure option of an actual jail."). A private security firm simply cannot replicate the controlled
environment of a federal correctional facility, in which, typically, all of the needs to the prisoner
can be attended to without placing the prisoner in the community at large; the defendant's proposed
private jail arrangement would have the effect of permanently placing him in just such a high-
flight-risk circumstance. The risk of a public escape attempt while in the community and involving
EFTA00028792

=== Page 9 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 9 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 9
armed private guards attempting to stop the defendant, potentially by force-rather than the
defendant being in the environment of a federal facility-also greatly magnifies the danger of the
defendant's flight to the public. See United States V. Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246, 257 (E.D.N.Y.
2019). "This is why, as the Government correctly notes, federal prisoners should be detained in
facilities run by trained personnel from federal correctional facilities." Id. at 258 (citing Sabhnani,
493 F.3d at 74 n.13 ("To the extent [armed private guards] implies an expectation that deadly force
may need to be used to assure defendant['s] presence at trial [s]uch a conclusion would, in fact,
demand a defendant's detention")).
The Second Circuit has held it is not legal error "for a district court to decline to accept,"
as "a substitute for detention," a defendant hiring private security guards to monitor him. United
States V. Banki, 369 Fed. App'x 152, 153-54 (2d Cir. 2010). In the same decision, the Second
Circuit noted that it was "troubled" by the possibility of "allow[ing] wealthy defendants to buy
their way out by constructing a private jail." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Id.; accord, e.g.,
United States V. Cilins, No. 13 Cr. 315 (WHP), 2013 WL 3802012, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013)
("it is contrary to underlying principles of detention and release on bail that individuals otherwise
ineligible for release should be able to buy their way out by constructing a private jail, policed by
security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully
selected" (quoting Borodin V. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9
F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act that would
suggest that a defendant (or even, hypothetically, a group of defendants with private funding) has
a statutory right to replicate or construct a private jail in a home or some other location.").
The defendant's payment of his guards also raises the conflict of interest inherent in having
the defendant having extraordinary influence over a private security company tasked with guarding
him, leaving the company's incentives entirely aligned with the defendant. See, e.g., Boustani,
356 F. Supp. 3d at 257 (in finding that private armed guards would not reasonably assure the
appearance of a defendant, noting a "clear conflict of interest-private prison guards paid by an
inmate" and noting that in a recent S.D.N.Y. case involving private security guards the defendant
"was outside of his apartment virtually all day, every weekday; was visited by a masseuse for a
total of 160 hours in a 30-day period; and went on an unauthorized visit to a restaurant in
Chinatown with his private guards in tow"); see also United States V. Tajideen, 17 Cr. 046, 2018
WL 1342475, at *5-6 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 2018) (finding Zarrab "particularly instructive" and further
noting: "While the Court has no reason to believe that the individuals selected for the defendant's
security detail would intentionally violate federal law and assist the defendant in fleeing the Court's
jurisdiction, it nonetheless is mindful of the power of money and its potential to corrupt or
undermine laudable objectives. And although these realities cannot control the Court's ruling, they
also cannot be absolutely discounted or ignored.").
Finally, in Zarrab this Court found that "the Defendant's privately funded armed guard
proposal is unreasonable because it helps to foster inequity and unequal treatment in favor of a
very small cohort of criminal defendants who are extremely wealthy, such as Mr. Zarrab." 2016
WL 3681423, at *13; see also Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d at 258 ("although this Defendant has vast
financial resources to construct his own 'private prison,' the Court is not convinced "disparate
treatment based on wealth is permissible under the Bail Reform Act") (quoting United States V.
EFTA00028793

=== Page 10 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 10 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 10
Bruno, 89 F. Supp. 3d 425, 432 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (""Even if Defendant had the financial capacity
to replicate a private jail within his own home, this Court is not convinced that such a set of
conditions would be sufficiently effective in this case to protect the community from Defendant,
or that such disparate treatment based on wealth is permissible under the Bail Act.")); Borodin,
136 F. Supp. 2d at 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (Nickerson, J.) ("It is contrary to underlying principles of
detention and release on bail that individuals otherwise ineligible for release should be able to buy
their way out by constructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately
accountable to the government, even if carefully selected.").
If the defendant's appearance can only be assured through use of round-the-clock guards,
the defendant belongs in a federal detention center, not released under bail conditions that
effectively create a private prison of one, using guards to be paid by the defendant himself. It is
frankly outrageous for the defendant to suggest that preventing him from using his vast wealth to
duplicate a private prison that cannot control, monitor, and contain him consistent with the
requirements of the Bail Act would cause him to somehow "bear a special disadvantage." Release
Motion at 12 n.9. Indeed: "What more compelling case for an order of detention is there than a
case in which only an armed guard and the threat of deadly force is sufficient to assure the
defendant's appearance?" Zarrab, 2016 WL 3681432, at *12 (quoting United States V. Valerio, 9
F. Supp. 3d at 295).
III.
The Defendant Provides No Assurance He is Not a Danger to the Community and a
Risk to Obstruct Justice
A. Danger to the Community
In the first instance, the defendant's argument that 14 years without a criminal conviction
eliminates "any danger presumption" should be rejected. Were that the case-which is certainly
is not-a lack of criminal record for any defendant would automatically rebut the presumption
applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States V.
Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was
"not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to manifest clear error in the district court's
determination that no combination of release conditions
could reasonably assure against
dangerousness and the risk of flight"). Moreover, here, the defendant not only has a criminal
record, but has been convicted of a sex crime involving a minor.
But the ongoing and forward-looking danger posed by the defendant is further
demonstrated by the defendant's maintenance of a substantial collection of photographic trophies
of his victims and other young females in his mansion, as discovered by the Government through
its search warrants. As indicated in the Detention Memo, the many discs found in the defendant's
residence included those with hand-written labels including the following: "Young [Name] +
[Name]," "Misc nudes 1," and "Girl pics nude." Not surprisingly, the Government has found that
such discs contain photographs of sexually suggestive photographs of fully- or partially-nude
females appearing to be underage.
EFTA00028794

=== Page 11 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 11 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 11
B. Danger to Obstruct Justice
The defendant has also already demonstrated a willingness to use intimidation and
aggressive tactics in connection with a criminal investigation. Far from being "musty," Release
Motion at 6 n.6, the defendant's past behavior in connection with being investigated for sexually
abusing children is the best predictor of his likely incentives and activities in connection with being
charged with sexually abusing children. For example, in the incident the defendant now claims
was not attributable to or authorized by him, the contemporaneous police report indicates that
pressure tactics were at the very least coordinated closely with individuals in the defendant's orbit.
See Palm Beach Police Report (the "Police Report") (Ex. B). According to the Police Report, the
parent of one of the defendant's victims was driven off the road by a private investigator. The
Police Report provides further information regarding victim and witness threats and intimidation
reported against an individual who was directly in contact with an assistant of the defendant,
followed "immediately" by a call to that same individual from a phone number associated with the
defendant's businesses and associates.
Separately, and in addition, there are also extensive allegations of obstruction and
tampering in connection with civil lawsuits brought against the defendant following his 2008
conviction. See Doe V. United States, 08 Civ. 80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. 291-15 at 21-23, 31.
Moreover, police reports suggest that an associate of Epstein's was offering to buy victims' silence
during the course of the prior investigation. Specifically, one victim reported that "she was
personally contacted through a source that has maintained contact with Epstein," who "assured
[the victim] that she would receive monetary compensation for her assistance in not cooperating
with law enforcement." Indeed, the victim reported having been told: "Those who help him will
be compensated and those who hurt him will be dealt with." See Palm Beach Police Report
(Ex. C).
And Epstein's efforts to influence witnesses continue to this day. As in the past, within
recent months. he paid significant amounts of money to influence individuals who were close to
him during the time period charged in this case and who might be witnesses against him at a trial.
By way of background, on or about November 28, 2018, the Miami Herald began publishing a
series of articles relating to the defendant, his conduct, and the circumstances of his prior
conviction and the non-prosecution agreement ("NPA"). Records obtained by the Government
from Institution-1 appear to show that just two days later, on or about November 30, 2018, the
defendant wired $100,000 from a trust account he controlled to an individual named as a possible
co-conspirator in the NPA. The same records appear to show that just three days after that, on or
about December 3, 2018, the defendant wired $250,000 from the same trust account to another
individual named as a possible co-conspirator in the NPA and also identified as one of the
defendant's employees in the Indictment. Neither of these payments appears to be recurring or
repeating during the approximately five years of bank records presently available to the
Government. This course of action, and in particular its timing, suggests the defendant was
attempting to further influence co-conspirators who might provide information against him in light
of the recently re-emerging allegations
EFTA00028795

=== Page 12 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 12 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 12
IV.
The Defendant Raises Legal Arguments Not Relevant Here
Finally, the defendant raises certain legal arguments he contends he will litigate at the
appropriate stage and which he further suggests mitigate in favor of bail. None is meritorious, and
certainly none should give the Court any comfort whatsoever that the defendant would, if granted
bail, refrain from fleeing so he could attempt to vindicate himself via dubious legal strategies.
Nevertheless, the Government will address the defendant's arguments briefly in turn.
A. The Non-Prosecution Agreement Does Not Preclude Prosecution
As an initial matter, as the Court itself noted at the parties' initial appearance earlier this
week, and as the defendant appears to concede, the instant Indictment charges conduct well beyond
the scope of the NPA - that is, alleged conduct that occurred here in New York and involving New
York based victims. D. Tr. 6-8; Release Motion at 2. For present purposes, that alone is sufficient
to put this issue to rest, because even assuming the defendant were to mount a meritorious
challenge to the NPA, he would still have to stand trial on Count Two of the Indictment and
additional charges brought based on New York conduct.
But more generally, the reasons the defendant can be prosecuted in the Southern District
of New York-or anywhere else outside the SDFL-are manifold. The language of the NPA
overwhelmingly refers to the SDFL, and the core terms and text of the agreement are limited to
the SDFL. The prefatory language states: "THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander
Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for
these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida." The final
paragraph of the prefatory language also states, among other things, that after fulfilling the terms
of the agreement, "no prosecution for the [sex abuse] offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this
Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that
arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District."
In its terms section, the NPA further states that Epstein's signature "is not to be construed
as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense" as
to any victim whose identity was not disclosed by SDFL to Epstein, as provided for in the NPA,
and additionally states that neither Epstein's signature nor any resulting waivers or civil
settlements "are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver
of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person." These provisions show the parties
contemplated possible criminal prosecutions in other jurisdictions and/or based on victims not
initially identified in the Florida investigations (whether in Florida or elsewhere). The final
substantive paragraph of the NPA states that "Epstein hereby requests that the United States
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer [...] prosecution."
It is well settled in the Second Circuit that "a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney's office
does not, unless otherwise stated, bind another." United States V. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921
7 All emphases relating to the NPA are added unless otherwise specified.
EFTA00028796

=== Page 13 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 13 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 13
(2d Cir. 2010) ("A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the
district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates
a broader restriction.") (citing United States V. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per
curiam)). Moreover, any references in an NPA to the "Government" or the "United States" do not
abrogate these principles. Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672 ("[A] plea agreement whereby a federal
prosecutor agrees that 'the Government' will dismiss counts of an indictment
might be thought
to bar the United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district unless the
agreement expressly limits the scope of the agreement
However, the law has evolved to the
contrary."). "The mere use of the term 'government' in the plea agreement does not create an
affirmative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular
district entering into the agreement." United States V. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States V. Brown, No. 99-1230,
2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (in analyzing an SDFL plea agreement,
reiterating the holding of Annabi and noting that it applies "even if the plea agreement purports to
bind 'the Government" or the "United States") (summary order); United States V. Bruno, 159 F.
Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the
phrase 'United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the
plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL.").
In sum, this issue is a distraction that has little relevance to the bail determination and does
nothing to address the defendant's risk of flight or mitigate the danger he poses to the community.
B. The Defendant Wrongly Argues the Statute Does Not Apply to His Sex Trafficking
Next, the defendant wrongly argues that the "principal conduct" giving rise to the charges
is his payment of underage girls for sex acts, and that such conduct could not possibly fall under
the charged statutes. As the defendant implicitly concedes, Release Motion at 14, this is an issue
for a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the defendant's argument is incorrect for two reasons.
First, although the defendant undoubtedly participated on the demand side of the crime, he
was also instrumental on the supply side given his role in recruiting and causing others to recruit
additional victims. He organized, funded, and perpetuated a sex trafficking scheme in two states,
including with co-conspirators. The fact that he did so for his own eventual and frequent sexual
gratification does not vitiate his role in enticing and recruiting victims, consistent with the elements
of the offense with which he is charged. The defendant was the leader of a sex-trafficking
enterprise, not a mere consumer.
8 This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States V. Laskow,
688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is
an explicit statement to the contrary, it is presumed that a non-prosecution agreement binds offices
of the United States Attorney that are not parties to the agreement. This position is at odds with
the law in this Circuit, which presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement
unless a defendant can affirmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was
contemplated.") (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672).
EFTA00028797

=== Page 14 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 14 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 14
Second, he is also wrong on the law. Courts have found that Section 1591 applied to both
suppliers and consumers of commercial sex acts. See, e.g., United States V. Jungers, 702 F.3d
1066, 1069 (8th Cir. 2013) (upholding the conviction of a defendant who attempted to pay for oral
sex from an underage girl and explaining: "The sole issue raised on appeal is whether '[t]he plain
and unambiguous provisions of 18 U.S.C. $ 1591 apply to both suppliers and consumers of
commercial sex acts.' We conclude they do.") (alteration in original). The lone case cited by the
defendant, Fierro V. Taylor, No. 11 Civ. 8573, 2012 WL 13042630 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2012), relied
heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South
Dakota, United States V. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and
United States V. Jungers, 11 Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of which
were explicitly overruled by the Eighth Circuit decision in Jungers, 702 F.3d 1066. In the seven
years since Fierro has been decided, it does not appear to have been cited by a single other court.
Additionally, other cases in this Circuit and elsewhere have upheld convictions of procurers or
customers. See United States V. O'Connor, 650 F.3d 839 (2d Cir. 2011) (upholding convictions
under Section 1591 of both the buyer and seller of a child); United States V. Cook, 782 F.3d 983
(8th Cir. 2015) (rejecting a constitutional challenge that Section 1591 would be void for vagueness
if applied to purchasers); United States V. Mikoloyck, No. 09 Cr. 036, 2009 WL 4798900 (W.D.
Mo. Dec. 7, 2009) ("contrary to defendant's argument, 18 U.S.C. $ 1591 clearly applies to those
who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing
United States V. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (11th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted
under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)).
CONCLUSION
As set forth above, the defendant's proposed bail package is insufficient and insubstantial.
Pretrial Services, victims, and the Government all recommend pretrial detention due to the unusual
and concerning confluence of factors in this case, including the defendant's extraordinary wealth,
demonstrated willingness to interfere with victims and witnesses, continued possession of lewd
photographs of young females, and both the incentive and means to flee prosecution.
Very truly yours,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
By:
/
/
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Tel: (212) 637-2415/2225 /2324
Cc:
Martin Weinberg, Esq., and Reid Weingarten, Esq., counsel for defendant
EFTA00028798


c1: EFTA00028443
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028443.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: draft response to preservation / production request
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 04:32:43 +0000
Attachments: 2019-08-05,_JE,_letter_to_defense_re_preservation_requests.docx
I know this is like literally the worst night to circulate this, but if either of you happens to have an opportunity to take a
glance tomorrow, I'm very happy to incorporate any thoughts / suggestions / corrections before sending up the chain -
and if not, no worries at all, l'll send it up and I'm sure there will be time to weigh in after, too.
thanks,
EFTA00028443


c1: EFTA00028831
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028831.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Weinstein, Marc A."
To:
Subject: US V. Epstein (civil forfeiture matter)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:07:19 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
Inline-Images: ATT76249_1.jpg
HHR OnlineMeetingCenter
Dial-In Information (for meetings with no presentations or video)
Dial-In Number
Conference ID:
One touch dial-in from mobile phone (via cellular service)
Additional Dial-In Numbers
Full list of dial-in numbers
Meetings with a presentation or video
Connect from computer or mobile device (via network/internet connection)
Help
Try Skype Web App if you are having trouble joining
Joining from a computer using the "Connect from computer or mobile device" link provides additional
capabilities, however you can simply call in from your telephone using the number provided above if your
meeting will not include video or a presentation. Click the "Help" link for additional information if you are a
guest joining a Skype for Business meeting from your computer or mobile device for the first time.
For meeting organizers: Reset your dial-in PIN?
EFTA00028831


c1: EFTA00027296
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027296.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
August 4, 2021
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Christian Everdell, Esq.
Mark Cohen, Esq.
Cohen & Gresser LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Laura Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
150 East Tenth Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Bobbi Sternheim, Esq.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
33 West 19th Street-4th Fl.
New York, NY 10007
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Counsel:
Today we are producing the materials listed in the below index. These discovery materials
are stamped with control numbers SDNY_GM_02753644 through SDNY_GM_02753697.
Please note that both this letter and the enclosed materials are governed by the July 31,
2020 Protective Order in this case. This letter is itself designated as "confidential," because it
includes information regarding records designated as "confidential" under the Protective
Order. Recently, the Department of Justice directed this office to cease the dissemination of
materials marked with the word "confidential" in order to avoid potential confusion with markings
reserved for classified documents. Accordingly, in order to note the appropriate designation of this
production under the operative Protective Order in this case, the materials being produced today
are marked with the following label: "SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7,
8,9, 10, 15, and 17." This marking directly refers to the specific paragraphs of the Protective Order
that govern today's production.
EFTA00027296

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2
An index of the materials contained in this production is below:
Bates Start
Bates End
Summary Description
Confidential
Designation
SDNY GM 02753644
SDNY GM 02753692
FBI Recovered Metadata
Confidential
SDNY GM 02753693
SDNY GM 02753695
Missouri Records
Confidential
SDNY GM 02753696
SDNY GM 02753696
JPMorgan Chase Return
Confidential
SDNY GM 02753697
SDNY GM 02753697
Oxford Letter, 11-07-1995
Confidential
The Government recognizes that its discovery obligations are ongoing and will promptly
produce any additional discoverable material of which it becomes aware. Please do not hesitate
to reach out if you have any difficulty accessing these materials.
Very truly yours,
United States Attorney
by:
Assistant United States Attorneys
EFTA00027297


c1: EFTA00027247
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027247.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Fwd: Hi Mr. Lavinsky
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:47:59 +0000
,
As discussed yesterday.
Sent from mobile device, please excuse typos.
Special Agent
Office of the Inspector General
New York, NY 10004
Cell
Office
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: August 21, 2019 at 10:57:48 AM EDT
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Hi Mr. Lavinsky
As discussed. See below email that was sent to John Lavinsky and share it with the Prosecutors and Investigative Team.
Thanks.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 10:41 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Hi Mr. Lavinsky
Good morning,
I wanted to share the following email with you.
is a former BOP employee who now works as a kind of
prison consultant, and he occasionally emails me with ideas about reforms for and problems at BOP. He is following the
Epstein matter closely (through news reports) and he sent me the following email, in which he represents that he has
suggested many detailed investigative steps to Representative Nadler's staff. I am sharing this with you purely in the
EFTA00027247

=== Page 2 ===
chance that it is helpful as you think through your own investigative steps. Whether any, all, or none of these actions is
useful is a decision I leave entirely to you and your colleagues on the investigation.
I am also copying
for her awareness and
because of the possibility that Nadler's staff will reach out to him.
Best,
From:
Mail [mailto:
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 8:29 AM
To:
Subject: Hi Mr. Lavinsky
I sent this to Mr. Nadler's people but I thought it would be equally beneficial to your people to connect dots.
" Hi Perry, as a follow up to my email the other day, I forgot to tell you that I operate mostly out of NY so I am
also constituent o The Congressman.
As far as transparency, I would like to start with I am an Independent, not a BOP hater and feel both parties
have not even a basic understanding of our Federal prison system policy, nuances or culture. This lack of
understanding in combination with the lack of transparency and accountability is why things like the Epstein
suicide and subsequent media frenzy occur:
Below are some more targeted things I would ask for which I did not see in Mr. Nadler's request:
1) The specific Annual Training Outline at NYM. This will include the suicide prevention training They
usually take theirs from a general outline submitted by the DC Correctional Programs Department but they
have the liberty to modify and add to it. There should be one PowerPoint for the entire country.
2) You would also want the sign in sheet for the training which includes the staff members name
and signature for the exact day they attended.
3) The individual regular (PP64) Intake and written Psychological Intake screening forms that Mr. Epstein
completed! This info is transferred over after a physical interview to the PDS/BEMR system.
4) ALL PDS (Psychology Data System) and ALL BEMR(Bureau Electronic Medial Records). PDS is now
incorporated into BEMR but I would be clear you want both. That would include the post-suicide watch
report and all daily clinical contacts if they were properly documenting This would also include the 30
day SHU review form which are sometimes cut and pasted without thought but I would imagine his would be
actual and specific to his situation. The NYM psychology department actually has a fairly good reputation.
5) They have should have completed a CIM Packet for Broad Publicity BP-339 form!
6) The Unit Team should have classification related forms regarding an initial classification and subsequent
program reviews. (See the pre-trial policy)
EFTA00027248

=== Page 3 ===
7) Someone from the unit team should have been making daily rounds which would be documented not only
the BP-292 forms (Special Housing Record & BP-295) but make sure you check the Unit Officers entrance
log bookto compare signatures, etc.
8) When it comes to log books, when I use to do suicide watch, they had a green government log book to
notate every 15 minutes plus people visiting the inmate would sign the book. Later in my career, most places
converted to a separate, blue individual log for the person watching, plus the green log book noting the
checks. This book was like the ones issues when we took tests in college. White paper, just 10 or so pages and
the book retired after watch for inclusion with the re-Construction.
9) You would like to see if they did the "mock suicide" exercises per the policy and review their
institution annual Operation Review for Psychology and most recent Program Review from DC. (every 2 to
3 years depending on previous review rating)
10) The suicide watch post orders for the officers and if the watch people signed the post orders.
11) Copy of the list of the actual inmate companions for the training and if the training was done.
12) SENTRY Transaction PP37, QTR which shows every single quarters change since he arrived.
13) SENTRY (I forget transaction #) which lists ALL assignments (inmate Assignment History Report")
14) ALL "Administrative Detention Orders" - For instance, pre-trial inmates can sing themselves in for
PC Or
Staff can admit them for "staff perception" of a threat. If it's staff perception, he can context and request a
hearing in front of the DHO per policy.
15) Copies of ALL data on the "SHU Program" which is a separate data base than SENTRY as well as copies
of the weekly SHU Review roster in the possession of Correctional Services.
There's actually more but I thought these would be helpful in your investigation.
These and other BOP issues need more micro management by the Deputy AG, in my humble opinion. They
have been void of seasoned leadership for a long time. This quasi-militaristic organization could be changed
rather quickly and I was disappointed that General Inch was undermined. If you have hearings, someone
should debrief him on why he bailed so quick.
The answer to Federal Prison Reform is not the First Step Act or some Second Step legislation. We first
need to abide by the current policy framework before we can reinvent the wheel. The BOP has great
policy which can be broadened but questionable leadership, transparency and accountability. Many
reforms can be accomplished without legislation, algorithms, blue ribbon commissions, etc.
Sincerely,"
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00027249


c1: EFTA00029575
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029575.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To: Nathan NYSD Chambers
Cc:
)"
)"
)"
Christian Everdell
>, , BOBBI C STERNHEIM
>, , Laura Menninger
, Jeff Pagliuca
Subject: US V. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Letter re Defendant's Transportation (Submitted Under
Seal)
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 03:55:48 +0000
Attachments: 2021-11-08_GM_letter_re_transportation_to_courthouse_final_(sealed).pdf
Good evening,
Attached please find the Government's letter regarding the defendant's transportation to the courthouse, which the
Government is submitting under seal as authorized by the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
EFTA00029575


c1: EFTA00028335
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028335.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Activity in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB USA V. Epstein Memo Endorsement
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:05:30 +0000
Importance: Normal
From
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 11:05 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Activity in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB USA V. Epstein Memo Endorsement
From:NYSD_ECF_Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov<NYSD_ECF_Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 10:54
To: CourtMail@nysd.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB USA V. Epstein Memo Endorsement
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this
e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***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. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 7/12/2019 at 10:54 AM EDT and filed on 7/12/2019
Case Name:
USA V. Epstein
Case Number:
1:19-cr-00490-RMB
Filer:
Document Number: 10
Docket Text:
MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Jeffrey Epstein on re: [8] Response to Motion filed by USA.
ENDORSEMENT: Application for extension of time denied. (Hard to imagine it would take the
Govt extra time to review submission.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/12/2019)(clt)
EFTA00028335

=== Page 2 ===
1:19-cr-00490-RMB-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
1:19-cr-00490-RMB-1 Notice has been delivered by other means to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=7/12/2019] [FileNumber=22448623-
0][b78e25821fed3ec4c49e1c663e660862da42b84bc8713063acef8396f5a16d9e3b
dfdba5d9cb72d9b4b4bf7a5a0817abcf5fc4baa64da55e0d9ae26d9ccd693d]]
EFTA00028336


c1: EFTA00027469
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027469.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To
Cc:
Subject: FW: Ghislaine Maxwell custody
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 21:04:00 +0000
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Fwd: Ghislaine Maxwell custody
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: July 2, 2020 at 3:43:43 PM EDT
To: "NHD-SUPERVISORS (USMS)"
Cc:
Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell custody
To all:
Below are the restrictions we have put in place regarding Ms. Maxwell during her stay at Merrimack DOC. I. If you have
any questions please feel free to call or email me.
Due to the high profile status of this case Inmate Maxwell will be closely monitored. The following directives
apply and shall not be deviated from without express permission from
myself or
1.
Inmate Maxwell will be housed in M1
2.
SRT personnel will be posted in medical and will only be relieved only by SRT personnel
3.
Staff will not converse with the inmate outside of the standard communication required related to the
inmate's health and safety
4.
Inmate Maxwell will remain on a 15 minute observation watch
5.
All rounds, and touch probe rounds will be conducted and documented in XJail
6.
Third Shift Supervisors will download the touch probe rounds and camera footage from the previous day
at 0000 hours each day. The video from the medical cell DVR will be downloaded onto a USB drive and will
EFTA00027469

=== Page 2 ===
be tracked via the designated tracking form provided. Supervisors are directed to deliver this documentation
and video to
Monday July 6th
7.
Inmate Maxwell will be authorized to communicate with her legal counsel, Lawrence Vogelman. This
contact is only authorized after Atty Vogelman provides the appropriate PIN
8.
Any and all requests from Inmate Maxwell are to be directed to
only
At no time are staff authorized to make statements to the press regarding this matter or our SOP regarding this
inmate.
Supervisory Deputy United States Marshal
District of New Hampshire
Concord, New Hampshire
office
This e-mail is property of U.S. Marshals Service. It is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distribution or copying
of this e-mail or the information contained herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately and destroy all electronic and paper copies of this e-mail.
EFTA00027470


c1: EFTA00029509
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029509.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To: "Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Epstein draft press materials
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 18:37:44 +0000
Importance: Normal
I will pass on to the team.
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00029509

=== Page 2 ===

=== Page 3 ===


c1: EFTA00028349
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028349.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
=
(USANYS)"
To:
(USAVI)"
Subject: Accepted: Jeffrey Epstein Estate/Southern Country International Bank/USVI
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 12:06:08 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00028349


c1: EFTA00028211
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028211.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Daubert motion
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 04:20:10 +0000
Attachments:Motion_to_preclude_Dietz_and_Loftus_v5.moe.docx
Here are one or two very small things. This looks great to me, and I defer to you guys on the bigger picture stuff, since
you're closer to the facts and the law here. Thanks so much for everyone's excellent work on this-really impressive stuff.
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:04 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
is
Subject: RE: Daubert motion
Hi all,
Here's a version that incorporates the Loftus section. The plan is to have a draft in the chiefs' inbox when they wake up,
so if folks are still up, would love comments as you can.
I'm going to write the Rocchio section now, so that will come later
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 8:00 PM
To
Subject: Daubert motion
Hi team,
In the interest of expediency, here is the Daubert motion for your comments. I still need to write my section, and I'm
doing some significant revisions to the Loftus section, but the Dietz section is done
crushed it. That's the bulk of
the motion, so feel free to read that over, and I'll send you the rest in a second round later.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00028211


c1: EFTA00028670
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028670.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Copy/Scan Vendors
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 15:33:17 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
Perfect. Thank you. I have it from here.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 11:32 AM
To:
is
Cc:
>;
Subject: RE: Copy/Scan Vendors
Here's a list of approved SPA vendors. My understanding is that Melken Solutions has handled sensitive work for USAO's in the past. As for all
others, try calling them to see, with the exception of EXPEDIAIMAGING. Do not call EXPEDIAIMAGING! They have been banned from performing
services for our office. I just couldn't delete them from the list.
Purchase Order
Contractor Code
Contractor
City
State
Phone
Fax
F3091
090-07055
ARTCRAFT ENGRAVING & PRINTING
HIALEAH
FL
305-557-9449
305-557-2867
(
F1944
090-45555
JACQUEKAYE LLC/1ST CHOICE PRINTING
PENSACOLA
FL
850-438-5191
9
850-438-5190
9
F1803
090-25026
LOURDES T. COX / CURIA DOCUMENT
MIAMI
FL
888-516-5193
9,
305-615-1288
e
F1540
090-57333
MELKEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
ORLANDO
FL
407-977-5673
&
407-977-5818
F2369
090-44064
RICOH USA
JACKSONVILLE FL
617-620-4231
9
832-513-7964
(
F1985
090-79720
SHARP INTEGRATED SERVICES/DBA SIR SPEEDY
MIAMI LAKES
FL
305-558-0144
e
305-558-2524
8
F2520
090-80635
SIR SPEEDY
MIAMI
FL
305-285-1401
&
305-285-1402
6
F3080
090-80770
SIR SPEEDY PRINTING CENTER
MIAMI
FL
305-573-2416
&
305-573-2431
9
F1989
090-90495
URBAN HOUSE LLC
NORTH PORT
FL
941-799-7446
&
866-908-4249
9
F3407
090-97403
XPEDIAIMAGING
WESTON
FL
954-384-2112
&
954-333-3673
9
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 11:21 AM
To:
>;
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Copy/Scan Vendors
I do not know what the NOC is.
EFTA00028670

=== Page 2 ===
I think they were just asking for recommendations for reputable vendors that we have used in the past. If there are two or three that we have had
good experiences using, in Fort Lauderdale, Miami, or wherever, I can forward that contact information and leave the rest to them to sort out. Does
that make sense?
Thanks for looking into this.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 11:18 AM
To:
Cc:
is
is
>;
Subject: RE: Copy/Scan Vendors
Currently, we do not have a contract in place for large/voluminous jobs. We use our Simplified Purchase Agreement (SPA) vendors for any job that
can't be handled in-house. Normally, these SPA vendors don't have storage space in their facilities to hold discovery past a brief period, and the
copy/scan jobs are small to medium. There are no restrictions for folks outside of our district on who they can use. If the request is being paid by
another district, they are free to go wherever they like. To help with the process, I can try to find a few SPA vendors in the WPB area. Then SDNY can
call them to ask if they can handle the job; about their security (confidentiality) protocol; and pricing information.
Another option may be to send the documents to the NOC. I don't know a lot about the process but we've used it in the past, and it's secure. If
interested in this option, I can discuss with our in-house Graphics Dept.
Questions:
Is there a deadline of when the documents are to be scanned/copied?
Are the original or copied documents going to opposing counsel to review?
Will the vendor be required to store the documents to allow defense to view/copy?
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:36 AM
To:
Cc:
>;
is
>;
Subject: Copy/Scan Vendors
Good Morning
I hope all is well.
The USAO - SDNY is requesting a list of vendors that we've used (I don't believe we have a current contract) for copying and scanning voluminous
files/documents/cd's and cassette tapes relating to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Obviously, confidentiality and sensitivity are major concerns.
I believe that SDNY will make the arrangements and pay for the services, but they are requesting a list of vendors that SDFL has used for these types
of services. Since we do not have a current contract, is there policy that needs to be followed to use a company in this field?
If memory serves me, I don't believe any of the companies were local to West Palm Beach (where the documents are being stored). I believe the
companies were in the Fort Lauderdale and Miami area.
Any information, assistance and guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you and take care,
Office Manager, WPB
EFTA00028671


c1: EFTA00029030
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029030.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Bce
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 14:52:42 +0000
Embedded: RE:_SDNY_investigation.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
Message-Id:
<CY1P110MB048699FD977B93D419B0468484330@CY1P110MB0486.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
>
To
Cc
EFTA00029030


c1: EFTA00028106
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028106.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA V. Maxwell Response to Motion
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 22:26:51 +0000
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 6:26 PM
To:
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA V. Maxwell Response to Motion
Yes, just filed!
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 6:26 PM
To:
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
Subject: FW: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA V. Maxwell Response to Motion
From: NYSD ECF Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov <NYSD ECF _Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 6:23 PM
To: CourtMail@nysd.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA V. Maxwell Response to Motion
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-
mail because the mail box is unattended.
***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. However, if the
referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Pagliuca, Jeffrey on 10/29/2021 at 6:23 PM EDT and filed on 10/29/2021
Case Name:
USA V. Maxwell
Case Number:
1:20-cr-00330-AJN
Filer:
Dft No. 1 - Ghislaine Maxwell
Document Number: 382
EFTA00028106

=== Page 2 ===
Docket Text:
RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell re: [380] MOTION in Limine (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit A (Filed Under Seal), # (2) Exhibit B (Filed Under Seal), # (3) Exhibit C (Filed Under Seal),
# (4) Exhibit D (Filed Under Seal), # (5) Exhibit E, # (6) Exhibit F (Filed Under Seal), # (7) Exhibit
G, # (8) Exhibit H (Filed Under Seal), # (9) Exhibit I (Filed Under Seal))(Pagliuca, Jeffrey)
1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
caseview.ecf@usdoj.gov. usanys.ecf@usdoj.gov
Bobbi C Sternheim bcsternheim@mac.com ecf@sternheimlaw.com
Christian R. Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com autodocket@cohengresser.com
David Boies , Il dboies@bsfllp.com, NYC_Managing_Clerk@bsfllp.com
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca jpagliuca@hmflaw.com, nsimmons@hmflaw.com
Katielynn Boyd Townsend ktownsend@rcfp.org
Elizabeth
CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
Laura A. Menninger Imenninger@hmflaw.com, alundberg@hmflaw.com, hrogers@hmflaw.com,
nsimmons@hmflaw.com
Mark Stewart Cohen mcohen@cohengresser.com autodocket@cohengresser.com
managingclerksoffice@cohengresser.com, Mark-Cohen-1234@ecf.pacerpro.com
CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
Sigrid S. McCawley smccawley@bsfllp.com, jarnold@bsfllp.com, NYC_Managing_Clerk@bsfllp.com, sigrid-mccawley-
4908@ecf.pacerpro.com
1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been delivered by other means to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=10/29/2021] [FileNumber=26714668
-0] [6f870c30c6d61f021df55c58f9dacdead7b0e23b38468e99151bfad86e722e20d
2ead0e1949d31ae806650eaa2e480964931a880e11511d3f26b9d1a2d6c95b0]
Document description:Exhibit A (Filed Under Seal)
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=10/29/2021] [FileNumber=26714668
-1] [4d4612fcf75b548b65db6b92cc4aebaf097ba2f7a630e09ab85c1debc2dce870es
6976f0f4618d73b430bf5dfed181538116e320337fb182708e25fb8778231fc]]
EFTA00028107

=== Page 3 ===
Document description:Exhibit B (Filed Under Seal)
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=10/29/2021] [FileNumber=26714668
-2] [3dc86f53986d537fb0e67e77cd6065806fdee6ee37880d5d1065ce6606c257bd0
3fe6c6b1baf2cc7ff62a7ada2245e68a1c73726e681fa3832c6cf8334e5e3ea|]
Document description:Exhibit c (Filed Under Seal)
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=10/29/2021] [FileNumber=26714668
-3] [5dde34402fcd1a7415cc7c4f8a47916311727b6c66e1eb06214beb5ed807140df
a7b129591b09e61f9c7445d2b165c1d305305c89d180a83750aff7c805c9b7c]]
Document description:Exhibit D (Filed Under Seal)
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=10/29/2021] [FileNumber=26714668
-4] |[439791b40d0215707d6632083c4ed4f1b5e4f5a6bd4881f1bf291a8f3422610a6
d9af932fd9c266296b5faa15f65135482b765b881827c7d161b0405a997b2b4]]
Document description:Exhibit E
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=10/29/2021] [FileNumber=26714668
-5] [a951d8782d5b3e6e101bc7104c70f9c6bd4ed18fb15b705f38692aace6c26da1
6f9a0fba2aac4eb4cd12ccc6f042dfce137328f8ee624cad873faff3ace9ace]]
Document description:Exhibit F (Filed Under Seal)
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=10/29/2021] [FileNumber=26714668
-6] [56268f99bffdc1afd4af98e4e9f86e25543e7862a5cd3f9281d22ee9c2523aa84
884e20c52fac9aaa757077d96b26422bf012479b543b0fce4805a3e5d65f058]]
Document description:Exhibit G
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=10/29/2021] [FileNumber=26714668
-7] [523b81ef6ba94d813157d97ef2a3a0e958c6c0f97f2ec6602bd5e5e53a10ae73c
c2fb0d19e2275bc8f89a9891e369ae8941e7c58cb1f7217611e370bc0c917e1]]
Document description:Exhibit H (Filed Under Seal)
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=10/29/2021] [FileNumber=26714668
-8] [598cd79220f7a581401653bf78f1921fb348e69ace2028d48029c1637efbe9020
419b0b80266bd46398edbb2a1b3a36a350834bd24cb49f263d58c21a5b5f604]]
Document description:Exhibit I (Filed Under Seal)
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=10/29/2021] [FileNumber=26714668
-9] [a393e814ee13137c1c3cefe5544926ea5f530f9679c883220d7384f91fceeb47C
96bc8a175a8833d51c5a98456642e535cd2f3ee183e3aacf7fbb9c14c228118]]
EFTA00028108


c1: EFTA00028567
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028567.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: new witness folder
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 18:30:50 +0000
Attachments: 2021.05.19
call_notes.pdf;
Report_re_October_2005_PB_Search.pdf;
Report_re_October_2005_PB_Search.pdf
Hi
Glad you could join today! Attached are the materials for
including my notes from today's call. Would
you please create a new testifying witness folder for him and add these materials?
Thanks
EFTA00028567


c1: EFTA00029327
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029327.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 14:41:54 +0000
Attachments: 2021-05-13 - ICA
; Subpoena_Response.pdf;
Declaration_of_Custodian_of_Records_-_5.12.21.pdf
Could you please add the attached to the subpoena folder and to the next discovery production? Thanks!
From: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 4:41 PM
To:
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi
Attached is what went in the mail today.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of the
addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
)"
Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 6:20 PM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
>,
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi Jeff,
Just checking in on this.
EFTA00029327

=== Page 2 ===
Thanks,
From: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:32 AM
To:
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi
I'm working on it and hope to have it complete and ready in the next couple of days.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of the
addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
)"
Date: Monday, April 26, 2021 at 9:28 AM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
>,
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi Jeff,
Hope you're doing well. Could you please let us know when you expect to produce these materials?
Thanks very much,
From: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 5:33 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi
EFTA00029328

=== Page 3 ===
Just confirming receipt. Also, I'm hopeful that we can have everything gathered by April 12th. However, l'll be out of the
office for the next week so it might be delayed. Will that be a problem?
In addition, and just for confirmation's sake, you are ok that we will make reasonable efforts to notify the
parents/students of the subpoena prior to compliance with the subpoena correct?
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of the
addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
)"
Date: Friday, March 26, 2021 at 3:37 PM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Jeff,
Thanks again for taking the time to speak with me this morning. As we discussed, I'm attaching a subpoena for additional
student records.
Thank you,
From: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 4:41 PM
To:
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Sounds good. Yes, that is the best number.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
EFTA00029329

=== Page 4 ===
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of the
addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
)"
Date: Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 4:40 PM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
i
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Thanks so much-let's plan to talk at 9:30 tomorrow morning, if that works for you. Is this the best number to reach you
then: 231-947-0400
Thanks,
From: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 4:32 PM
To:
Cc:
)
>;
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
H
I'm available between 9am and 10am, and then again after 11am.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of the
addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
)"
Date: Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 3:41 PM
EFTA00029330

=== Page 5 ===
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
i
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi Jeff,
Hope you're doing well. Are you available for a quick call tomorrow morning?
Thanks very much,
From: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:10 AM
To:
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
231-947-0400
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of the
addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
)"
Date: Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 10:37 AM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
>,
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi Jeff- what is the best number to reach you this morning? Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 5, 2021, at 3:21 PM, Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com> wrote:
That works for me.
Jeff
EFTA00029331

=== Page 6 ===
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of the
addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
are not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
"
)"
Date: Monday, January 4, 2021 at 8:28 PM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
>,
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
That would be great, thanks. Would Thursday at 11:30 work for you?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:50 PM, Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com> wrote:
Sure. Does Wednesday or Thursday morning work?
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of the
addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
are not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
"
)"
Date: Monday, January 4, 2021 at 1:02 PM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
>,
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi Jeff,
Thanks very much. Are you available for a call sometime in the next few weeks? We have one or two follow up
questions that would be helpful to talk through.
EFTA00029332

=== Page 7 ===
Thanks,
From: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 2:37 PM
To:
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi
-
Sorry about the delay. Interlochen doesn't have any other documents regarding tuition payment information or
payments by Epstein or Epstein entities.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks,
Jeff Jocks
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of the
addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
are not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
"
)"
Date: Monday, December 7, 2020 at 11:27 AM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
>,
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi Jeff,
Just checking in on the below.
Thanks,
From:
)
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 3:28 PM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
EFTA00029333

=== Page 8 ===
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi Jeff,
Hope you're doing well. I'm following up on our conversation from earlier this month to see if you have any updates on
the categories of documents we discussed.
Thanks very much,
From: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 11:15 AM
To:
Cc:
>;
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
That works for me. I will call in at 10am Monday.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of the
addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
are not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
II
)"
Date: Friday, October 30, 2020 at 11:13 AM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
>,
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi Jeff,
Thanks very much. Would a call on Monday at 10 a.m. work for you? If so, we can use this conference line:
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00029334

=== Page 9 ===
On Oct 30, 2020, at 9:06 AM, Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com> wrote:
Hi
-
I'm happy to have a call. I'm available Monday all morning, Tuesday until 10:30am and Wednesday all morning.
I apologize about not getting back with you. I thought the other attorney that filed the response was going to do so.
Regardless, the response included everything that Interlochen has. They only keep tuition payment information for 7
years and nothing in their files reflects any payments by Epstein or Epstein entities.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of
the addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If you are not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
)"
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 6:20 PM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com
Cc:
)"
>,
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Jeff,
I hope you are doing well. We still have not received a response to our inquiry from April of 2020. Would you be
available for a call with our team next week to discuss, please?
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-637-2324
EFTA00029335

=== Page 10 ===
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:46 PM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi Jeff,
No, I don't think you responded. Totally understandable given everything that has gone on in the last month. I'd still
be grateful if you could get back to me on this point, please.
Hope you are also staying safe and healthy.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-637-2324
From: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:20 PM
To:
)
>
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Hi
-
Did we ever respond to you on this question? Things have gotten so complicated that I can't remember or
determine.
Hope you are staying safe and healthy.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of
the addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If you are not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
EFTA00029336

=== Page 11 ===
From:
)"
Date: Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 3:04 PM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>, "Donnini, George B." <donnini@butzel.com>
Cc:
)"
>,
)"
Subject: RE: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Jeff and George,
Thank you both very much for your assistance in response to our subpoenas seeking records from Interlochen. In
reviewing the documents you produced in response to the attached subpoena, a follow-up question arose. Would
you please confirm that your production included all records of any tuition payments that Epstein (or his entities)
made for any students at Interlochen?
Our team is also happy to discuss this inquiry over the phone if that would be useful. I am starting a trial tomorrow
and will have limited availability this week, but my colleagues
and
(both cc'd) should be
able to coordinate with you as needed.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-637-2324
From: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 2:46 PM
To:
)
>
Cc:
is
Subject: Re: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Receipt confirmed.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Jocks
Sondee, Racine & Doren, PLC
310 West Front Street, Suite 300
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
231-947-0400
jjocks@sondeeracine.com
www.sondeeracine.com
EFTA00029337

=== Page 12 ===
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended for the use of
the addressee only. Its contents may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If you are not the named addressee, please delete it immediately. Thank you.
From:
"
)"
Date: Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM
To: Jeff Jocks <jjocks@sondeeracine.com>
Cc:
)"
i
)"
Subject: Subpoena to Interlochen Center for the Arts
Jeff,
As discussed, attached please find a subpoena addressed to Interlochen seeking information regarding Jeffrey
Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Per our conversation, we understand that Interlochen will keep this request
confidential.
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-637-2324
EFTA00029338


c1: EFTA00027867
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027867.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov" <cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov>
To:
Subject: 21-770 United States of America V. Maxwell "Defective Document FILED"
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 14:27:07 +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 04/01/2021
Case Name:
United States of America V. Maxwell
Case Number: 21-770
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Notice of Appearance as Substitute Counsel, [7], on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine
Maxwell in 21-770, 21-58, FILED.[3068130] [21-770, 21-58]
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: Defective_Document_Notice
Original Filename:
/opt/ACECF/live/forms/TammyTorres_21770_3068130_Defective_Document_Notice_142.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1161632333 [Date=04/01/2021] [FileNumber=3068130-0]
[91818b2e326bf97e7eb73a1bd50037e8225af8cb1bb686e895adfa58e65167120b84db33f83e6eb8a90a08bfdd04d
0b40df6d07eecfe88910615ab23f6048c62]]
Recipients:
EFTA00027867

=== Page 2 ===
EFTA00027868


c1: EFTA00027415
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027415.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: 21-58 United States of America V. Maxwell "Attorney TERMINATED"
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:27:36 +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 04/27/2021
Case Name:
United States of America V. Maxwell
Case Number: 21-58
Docket Text:
ATTORNEY, Christian R. Everdell, for Ghislaine Maxwell, TERMINATED.[3087477] [21-58, 21-770]
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Notice will be stored in the notice cart for:
Quality Control 1
EFTA00027415


c1: EFTA00027298
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027298.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: RE: Upcoming Nineteenth Production
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 13:28:09 +0000
Attachments: US_v_Maxwell_Discovery_Index.xlsx; 2021.08.05_Maxwell_Discovery_Letter.docx
Thank you,
!
The below changes have been made and are reflected in the updated cover letter (attached and
saved here) and the index (also attached and saved here). If the cover letter looks good to go, I can PDF it. Thanks again
for reviewing!
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 9:39 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Upcoming Nineteenth Production
Thanks so much,
!
For the index and the cover letter, would you please break out the "FBI Recovered Metadata"
into two rows that correspond with the subfolders within that folder on the share? The first row should be entitled "Files
Recovered from Discs Seized from Epstein NY Residence" and the second row should be entitled "De-Designated Images
from Epstein's Electronic Devices".
Also, I'd like to add the following language below the index in the cover letter, please:
"Please note that the files recovered from discs seized from Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence and the De-Designated
Images from Epstein's Electronic Devices are being produced to you with html files that contain thumbnails of each image
and any recovered metadata next to each thumbnail. In order to view the full size image from a particular row in the html
file, click on the thumbnail, which will automatically open up the full size image from within the folder structure
maintained in the folder entitled "Files." Use of these html files does not require Internet access, but does require that
the file structure within the folder entitled "Files" remain unchanged.
Additionally, certain of the files that were recovered from the discs seized from Epstein's New York residence are not
viewable on the FBI's system. In the interest of completeness, however, we are producing to you every file that was
recovered from those discs, including those that are not openable or viewable."
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 3:50 PM
To:
is
is
Cc:
>;
Subject: RE: Upcoming Nineteenth Production
Great, thank you!
EFTA00027298

=== Page 2 ===
The entire production has now been stamped and is ready for your review. With the exception of the FBI Recovered
Metadata (which is on a hard drive; we will ask
/IT to make us an internal copy of the stamped version), the rest of
the production is saved here on the shared. The index is also attached and saved here. Finally, I attached a draft cover
letter for defense counsel (also saved here). I'm happy to make any changes to the production, index, or cover letter as
needed.
If it looks good to go, we can start loading the materials once the hard drives from defense arrive. Thanks so much!
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 3:26 PM
To:
is
is
Cc:
>;
Subject: RE: Upcoming Nineteenth Production
Hi
Thanks! That proposal for the stamp makes sense to me.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 11:08 AM
To:
is
is
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Upcoming Nineteenth Production
Thanks,
!
We can definitely use the same protective order stamp for this production.
please let me know what you prefer for stamping the JPMC returns. I'm happy to coordinate!
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 9:56 AM
To:
is
is
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Upcoming Nineteenth Production
Thanks
I'm going to defer to
on how to stamp the JPMC returns.
My preference would be to use the same stamp we used in our most recent productions, but please let me know if that
label is too long to be workable, in which case we'll figure out an alternative.
EFTA00027299

=== Page 3 ===
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 9:53 AM
To:
is
is
Cc:
>;
Subject: Upcoming Nineteenth Production
Hi all,
Mike has finished pulling the FBI Recovered Metadata from the shared, so we will be able to stamp those materials soon.
They are 217 GB in size, so we should ask defense counsel for a 500GB drive for us to load the entire Nineteenth
Production onto. In the meantime, I had a couple questions regarding the remaining materials in the pending production:
1. How would you like the JP Morgan Chase returns stamped? We can give each production folder its own Bates
stamp, but unfortunately we can't stamp each individual file since it's in a load file format; we would have to ask
to do so. I'm happy to coordinate whatever you prefer.
2. How would you like us to stamp the materials so that they comply with the correct protective order designation?
We can use "SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17," as we did in the most recent
3500 production, but I wanted to confirm with you all first.
I'm happy to chat further if anything's unclear. Thanks very much, all!
Paralegal Specialist
U.S. Attorney's Office I
SDNY
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00027300


c1: EFTA00029384
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029384.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
01/16/2020 17:46 EST
Generated By:
Page 1 of 5
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
(Eastern)
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
12/18/1999
PV
1
I
A511
AIRLINE
16:26
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
10/02/1999
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
18:00
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
09/10/1999
AF
6
I
4701
APIS
JFK
CDG
15:15
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
08/14/1999
PV
908JE
I
A511
AIRLINE
19:26
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
08/01/1999
AA
412
I
A511
AIRLINE
12:42
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
07/15/1999
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
18:10
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
04/28/1999
BA
113
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
18:54
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
03/25/1999
AA
412
I
A511
AIRLINE
12:23
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
01/17/1999
SA
203
I
A524
AIRLINE
05:17
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
12/13/1998
BA
1
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
09:22
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
11/07/1998
AA
412
I
A511
AIRLINE
12:27
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
10/03/1998
AA
412
I
A511
AIRLINE
12:28
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
08/30/1998
AA
672
I
A511
AIRLINE
13:36
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
07/24/1998
AA
1672
I
A511
AIRLINE
13:48
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
07/20/1998
BA
113
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
19:30
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
06/07/1998
AA
5567
I
A511
AIRLINE
18:48
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
05/30/1998
AF
8
I
4701
APIS
JFK
CDG
20:41
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00029384

=== Page 2 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
01/16/2020 17:46 EST
Generated By:
Page 2 of 5
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
(Eastern)
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
05/17/1998
CO
29
I
A103
AIRLINE
INS
14:13
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
03/20/1998
BA
1
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
09:15
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
02/28/1998
00
90
I
A523
AIRLINE
20:29
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
01/19/1998
00
9
I
A523
AIRLINE
17:39
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
12/25/1997
00
0000001
I
A523
AIRLINE
18:14
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
12/23/1997
00
1
I
A523
AIRLINE
17:36
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
12/06/1997
RG
0000868
I
A472
AIRLINE
18:34
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
11/10/1997
00
1
I
A523
AIRLINE
17:08
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
10/17/1997
VS
0000001
I
A103
AIRLINE
18:15
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
08/06/1997
I
A520
AIRLINE
15:07
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
06/23/1997
I
A475
AIRLINE
17:41
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
05/31/1997
I
A523
AIRLINE
18:52
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
05/27/1997
I
A520
AIRLINE
16:50
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
03/19/1997
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
18:07
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
02/06/1997
BA
3
I
A472
AIRLINE
18:03
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
01/25/1997
I
A523
AIRLINE
18:56
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
12/18/1996
vs
5
I
5206
APIS
MIA
LGW
16:16
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00029385

=== Page 3 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
01/16/2020 17:46 EST
Generated By:
Page 3 of 5
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
(Eastern)
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
08/09/1996
I
A520
AIRLINE
17:00
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
06/17/1996
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
INS
JFK
LHR
17:57
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
02/21/1996
vs
1
I
A103
AIRLINE
INS
19:30
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
12/22/1995
QF
107
I
2720
APIS
LAX
SYD
00:00
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
12/05/1995
BA
293
I
MIA
APIS
MIA
LHR
00:00
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
09/19/1995
I
A476
AIRLINE
15:25
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
09/19/1995
AF
2
I
4701
APIS
JFK
CDG
00:00
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
07/08/1995
I
A476
AIRLINE
20:20
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
12/18/1994
I
A472
AIRLINE
22:00
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
12/18/1994
I
A472
AIRLINE
21:51
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
09/09/1994
DL
43
I
APIS
CVG
ORY
17:40
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
07/01/1994
I
A476
AIRLINE
17:10
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
I
05/19/1994
I
A103
AIRLINE
18:36
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
I
05/19/1994
I
A103
AIRLINE
18:36
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
I
05/19/1994
I
A103
AIRLINE
18:31
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
02/01/1994
I
A471
AIRLINE
09:05
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
11/06/1993
BA
189
I
5401
APIS
IAD
LHR
00:00
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
07/20/1993
AA
51
I
5501
APIS
DFW
LGW
16:05
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00029386

=== Page 4 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
01/16/2020 17:46 EST
Generated By:
Page 4 of 5
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
(Eastern)
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
04/20/1993
I
A472
AIRLINE
14:02
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
09/28/1991
0000000
I
A472
AIRLINE
09:44
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
08/30/1991
0000000
I
A273
AIRLINE
20:34
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
06/13/1991
0000000
I
A476
AIRLINE
20:19
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
05/20/1991
0000000
I
A472
AIRLINE
18:03
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
12/04/1990
0000000
I
A471
AIRLINE
19:50
(NOT
API)
Total Number of Records: 58
Legend
Loc
Codes
Value
LAX
LOS ANGELES, CA INTL
MIA
MIAMI INTL, FL
DFW
DALLAS/FT WORTH INTL
CVG
CINCINNATI
LHR
LONDON / HEATHROW INTL
CDG
PARIS, CH. DE GAULLE
ORY
PARIS, ORLY
LGW
LONDON / GATWICK INTL
IAD
DULLES INTL
JFK
JOHN F KENNEDY INTL
SYD
KINGSFORD SMITH-SYDNEY
Doc Type
Codes
Value
P
P - PASSPORT
A
A - - U.S. ALIEN REGISTRATION CARD
I
I - INSPASS DOCUMENT
Site Code
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00029387

=== Page 5 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
HOMELAND SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
01/16/2020 17:46 EST
Generated By:
Page 5 of 5
Codes
Value
MIA
MIA - MIA
A524
A524 - CBP-MIAMI, AIRPORT CNTRL TERML
A511
A511 - CBP-CYRIL E KING, INTL AIRPORT
A523
A523 - CBP-PALM BEACH, INTERNATIONAL
A520
A520 - CBP-MIAMI, AIRPORT N TERMINAL
A476
A476 - NEW YORK, JFK AIRPORT, TERM 4W
A103
A103 - CBP-NEWARK, INTL AIR TERM B
A475
A475 - NEW YORK, JFK AIRPORT, TERM 3
A472
A472 - NEW YORK, JFK AIRPORT, TERM 7
A471
A471 - NEW YORK, JFK AIRPORT, TERM 4
A273
A273 - LOS ANGELES, BRADLEY AP LAX
2720
2720 - 2720
5401
5401 - 5401
5501
5501 - 5501
5206
5206 - 5206
4701
4701 - 4701
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00029388


c1: EFTA00029423
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029423.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: Christian Everdell
Subject: RE: Witness-3 - proposed redactions
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 03:55:45 +0000
Attachments:2021.11.11_Letter_to_Judge_Nathan_re_Response_to_Government_Leters_re_Accuser-
3_Evidence_[revised_proposed_redactions].pdf
Hey Chris,
Thanks again - I think this is the correct document.
Thanks,
From: Christian Everdell
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 10:33 PM
To:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Witness-3 - proposed redactions
Can you call me on my cell quickly?
From:
Sent: Saturday, November 20. 2021 9:50 PM
To: Christian Everdell
Laura Menninger
Jeff Pagliuca
Cc:
Subject: Witness-3 - proposed redactions
Counsel,
Attached are our proposed redactions to the supplemental filings and order regarding Witness-3.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00029423


c1: EFTA00027770
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027770.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Epstein Victims Demand Apology From Prosecutors - Law360
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 11:02:43 +0000
Importance: Normal
Law360 (May 24, 2019, 7:55 PM EDT) -- Two of billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's victims have asked a
Florida federal court to nullify the nonprosecution agreement with Epstein that the court has already deemed
illegal and want an apology from the U.S. attorney's office as well as a hearing at which they and other victims
can testify.
The two victims submitted their list of proposed remedies late Thursday after the court found in their favor in
February and ruled that prosecutors, including then-U.S. Attorney and current Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta,
violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act when they signed the nonprosecution agreement with Epstein without
notifying his victims.
Among the remedies they seek are the nullification of the nonprosecution agreement and the reopening of the
criminal case against Epstein and a hearing at which they and other victims can address the court in the presence
of Acosta and Epstein.
The victims are also asking for a letter of apology from prosecutors as well as a detailed explanation, including
documents and correspondence, as to why they did not prosecute Epstein's alleged crimes.
They want employees of the U.S. attorney's office to attend a training course on the CVRA and said the office
should pay a monetary sanction, as well as the two victims' attorney fees and costs.
"Here the government has it entirely within its power to provide all the various remedies being sought through
the lawsuit - and then some," the victims said. "Hopefully the government will simply agree to the remedies
described above - thereby avoiding any need for the court to make a determination as to how to proceed."
The filing comes after U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted summary judgment to the two victims,
listed as Jane Does, who sued the government in 2008 alleging that prosecutors had violated the CVRA with the
Epstein deal. The judge said the government's decision to hide its intentions and to tell victims to just be patient
with the investigation was "particularly problematic."
Judge Marra rejected the government's claim that the CVRA requires victims to be notified only of a plea bargain
or a deferred prosecution agreement, both of which are more common than a nonprosecution agreement. That
reading of the law is "inconsistent with the goal of the CVRA," according to the judge.
"The expansive context of the CVRA lends itself to only one interpretation; namely, that victims should be
notified of significant events resulting in resolution of their case without a trial," Judge Marra said.
The CVRA grants crime victims a number of rights, including the right to be informed of public court
proceedings and not to be excluded from those proceedings. The Miami Herald, in an investigative report
published late last year, printed emails showing the alleged victims were deliberately excluded from the deal cut
between Acosta, who was then the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Epstein's defense team.
Epstein's alleged victims - numbering in the dozens - claim he lured teenage girls to his Palm Beach, Florida,
mansion to engage in sexual acts. They have not had the opportunity to testify in court in any proceeding thus
far, according to the Herald report.
EFTA00027770

=== Page 2 ===
Epstein pled guilty in 2008 to state charges involving solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for
prostitution. He spent 13 months in prison and is registered as a sex offender.
Representatives for the parties could not immediately be reached for comment Friday.
The victims are represented by Bradley Edwards of Edwards Pottinger LLC, Jay C. Howell of Jay Howell &
Associates PA, John Scarola of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley PA, and Paul G. Cassell of the
University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law.
The government is represented by Ann Marie C. Villafana and Dexter Lee of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida.
The case is Doe V. U.S., case number 9:08-cv-80736, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.
Read more at: https://www.law360.com/whitecollar/articles/1163266/epstein-victims-demand-apology-from-
prosecutors?nl_pk=a9a6fd9c-0b8f-460f-8da7-
a965bdf584e7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=whitecollar?copied=1
https://www.law360.com/articles/1163266/epstein-victims-demand-apology-from-prosecutors
EFTA00027771


c1: EFTA00029042
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029042.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From
To
C
Jill Greenfield
Bec: "USAHUB-USAJournal111"
Subject: RE: Epstein [FFW-DOCS.FID6003375]
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:18:09 +0000
Embedded: RE:_Epstein_[FFW-DOCS.FID6003375].msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: Epstein [FFW-DOCS.FID6003375]
Message-Id:
<CY1P110MB04867BF049A0EC6A4F8DE141840C0@CY1P110MB0486.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.CO
M
To
Co
EFTA00029042


c1: EFTA00028050
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028050.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Subject: JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, 2020PR000426AMB
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:34:39 +0000
This has been downloaded and saved to the shared.
From:
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 3:33 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Subject: JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, 2020PR000426AMB
PBSA is giving us their entire Epstein file.
Will, when I get the email with the info about how to download the file, I'll forward it to you. Would you please download
everything and save it on the share? You can put it here
USvEpstein-
2018R01618\Investigation\PBSA Epstein File
Original Message
From:
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 3:23 PM
To:
Subject: Subject: JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, 2020PR000426AMB
The attached document is in regard to the above referenced case, to which you are a party of or have an interest in. If
you have any questions, please contact our office at
EFTA00028050


c1: EFTA00029610
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029610.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: CBP Question
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 16:28:17 +0000
Thanks!
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:09 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: CBP Question
Hi
I ran travel for both Maxwell and Epstein between 1/1/1997 to 2/1/2000.
After reviewing the travel details, the dates that correlate or are near the dates listed for
are listed below. These
are listed as INBOUND records.
Jeffrey Epstein:
12/11/1999
1/21/2000
Ghislaine Maxwell
6/23/1997
8/6/1997
7/20/1998
7/24/1998
12/18/1999
1/21/2000
I included 6/23/1997 and 8/6/1997 because between those dates GM traveled OUTBOUND. The same for 7/20/1998-
7/24/1998.
I attached each individual records as well as the full travel records for 1/1/1997-2/1/2000.
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:55 PM
To:
EFTA00029610

=== Page 2 ===
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - FW: CBP Question
Hi
Could you please take a look at these and let us know if any of these dates line up with Maxwell or Epstein's travel?
Thanks!
From:
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:49 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: CBP Question
Hey
Attached ate the travel records as requested. However, it's the same issue as last time since the outbound departures
were not recorded during that timeframe it only shows the inbound arrivals. Any questions or concerns don't hesitate to
reach out.
Respectfully,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Task Force Officer - SDNY
US Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
(LES/FOUO) LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
WARNING:
The information contained in this email is considered confidential and sensitive in nature as well as sensitive but
unclassified and/or legally privileged information. It is not to be released to the media, the general public, or to non-law
enforcement personnel who do not have a "need-to-know". This information is not to be posted on the Internet, or
disseminated through unsecured channels, and is intended for law enforcement personnel only. It is solely for the use of
the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws
including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and
destroy all copies of the communication.
DISSEMINATION INSTRUCTIONS: This document is marked Law Enforcement Sensitive/For Official Use Only and may
be disseminated, with proper attribution, to Law Enforcement, DOD, or U.S. Intelligence Agencies. Further disclosure to
unauthorized entities could jeopardize ongoing investigations, operations, and personal safety. This product shall not be
released to the public or media.
From:
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 2:11 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: CBP Question
Thanks so much! Can you please pull the CBP records for
We would like the CBP records for the 1990s
only. Her date of birth is
She is French. Please let us know if you need any other information. Thanks again!
EFTA00029611

=== Page 3 ===
From:
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:50 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: CBP Question
Hey
Sure no problem, send over the info you need and I'll work on it today.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 20, 2021, at 1:42 PM,
wrote:
Hi
I hope you are doing well. We were hoping you could pull some additional CBP records for us. Are you able to assist us
with that this week?
Thanks so much,
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 5:31 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: CBP Question
Hey
Sorry I was on the road but I spoke with
he filled me in on what your looking for. I'm also available for a call to
further discuss.
Respectfully,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Task Force Officer - SDNY
US Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
(LES/FOUO) LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
WARNING:
The information contained in this email is considered confidential and sensitive in nature as well as sensitive but
unclassified and/or legally privileged information. It is not to be released to the media, the general public, or to non-law
enforcement personnel who do not have a "need-to-know". This information is not to be posted on the Internet, or
disseminated through unsecured channels, and is intended for law enforcement personnel only. It is solely for the use of
the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable
EFTA00029612

=== Page 4 ===
laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
DISSEMINATION INSTRUCTIONS: This document is marked Law Enforcement Sensitive/For Official Use Only and may be
disseminated, with proper attribution, to Law Enforcement, DOD, or U.S. Intelligence Agencies. Further disclosure to
unauthorized entities could jeopardize ongoing investigations, operations, and personal safety. This product shall not be
released to the public or media.
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 3:56:15 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: CBP Question
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of DHS. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize and/or trust the
sender. If you feel this is a suspicious-looking email, please report by using the Report Phish button option.
Hi
I hope you are well!
passed along your info to us. We were hoping to connect with you by phone about
a question in one of our cases. Do you have time to talk today or tomorrow morning?
Thanks so much!
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
New York, New York 10007
EFTA00029613


c1: EFTA00027122
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027122.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 422
CLERK US DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DIST. OF TX
FILED
2015 APR IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEPUTY
CLERK
MA
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-11080
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
April 8, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Clerk
V.
FREDERICK HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:14-CR-18-1
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Frederick Hernandez pled guilty to making false
statements and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 & 1002
after he was charged in connection with an investigation that took place after
an inmate committed suicide at the federal correctional center where he was
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
EFTA00027122

=== Page 2 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 12 PageID 423
No. 14-11080
employed as a correctional officer.¹ On appeal, he challenges the sentence
imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction. We affirm.
I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Hernandez was employed as a correctional officer ("CO") at the Big
Spring Correctional Center ("BSCC") in Big Spring, Texas from 1999 until
August 2012. The facility had a Special Housing Unit ("SHU") that was used
to house high-risk inmates under administrative detention and disciplinary
segregation. Due to the nature of the high-risk inmates housed in the SHU,
the COs assigned to the unit had additional duties, including documenting in
writing that they had conducted random safety checks every 30 minutes during
their shifts, with notations for any unusual activity or reasons if one or more
of the rounds could not be conducted. Formal inmate counts and fire and safety
checks of the unit were to also be conducted several times during a 12-hour
shift and documented in writing. The COs assigned to the SHU were also
required to sign Post Orders Quarterly Signature Sheets, which confirmed that
they had read and understood the specific requirements for working with the
high-risk inmates housed in the SHU.
Inmate Luis Bent was housed in the SHU when he committed suicide in
his cell on August 23, 2012. Prior to his death, Bent was transferred upon his
own request to the SHU on August 21, 2012. On August 22, 2012, Bent was
evaluated by medical personnel. According to the progress notes taken at that
time, Bent's mental state had deteriorated significantly since his last
evaluation a week prior on August 15, 2012. Bent's August 15th evaluation
indicated that his sleep, mood, energy and appetite were all "good" and
1 Frederick Hernandez's term of imprisonment is scheduled to be completed on August
25, 2015. As such, Hernandez filed a motion to expedite consideration of his appeal on
January 26, 2015. This court granted the motion on January 30, 2015.
2
EFTA00027123

=== Page 3 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 12 PageID 424
No. 14-11080
"normal." Bent's August 22nd evaluation, which took place at 1:20 p.m. the
day after his transfer to the SHU, indicated that he was paranoid, rambling,
and that he had "[l]oosening of associations, poor judgment, poor insight; no
suicidal thoughts, no homicidal thoughts[.]" (emphasis in original). Although
the record indicates that some of the COs were generally aware of Bent's
medical evaluation, there is nothing in the record indicating that Hernandez
or any of other the COs reviewed the August 22nd progress notes, nor have
they claimed to have reviewed the progress notes.
CO Joey Rosas worked in the SHU from 8:00 p.m. to 11:45 p.m. on
August 22, 2012. Rosas stated in subsequent investigations that he had
expressed concerns about Bent's mental state prior to Bent's suicide. He also
stated that he was personally told when he arrived for his August 22nd shift
that Bent had been evaluated by medical personnel earlier that day
(approximately 1:20 p.m.) who had determined at that time that he was
"thrown off" but "okay."
Hernandez also reported for his shift that day at 8:00 p.m. and was
assigned to work in the control room while other officers were assigned to
conduct rounds and patrol the perimeter. Hernandez stated that when he and
the other officers arrived for their shifts, the COs from the previous shift
informed them that Bent had been behaving strangely and acting "crazy"
during shift change, which was several hours after his medical evaluation
when it was reported that he was "okay." The COs were also informed that
Bent was reportedly acting "suicidal" and holding up signs in his cell door
which read "DEA," "death," and "help."
CO Christopher Moore began his shift just after midnight at 12:15 a.m.
on August 23, 2012. He stated that, while he was in the control room where
Hernandez was assigned to work with other correctional officers, they
3
EFTA00027124

=== Page 4 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 12 PageID 425
No. 14-11080
discussed a prior suicide attempt which had occurred earlier that month in the
SHU.
During the course of Hernandez's shift, he conducted a mandatory move
of inmates from one cell to another, a procedure carried out every 21 days.
After moving the inmates, Hernandez provided them with supplies to clean
their cells. Lights in the SHU were turned off at 11:00 p.m. While the lights
were off in the SHU, the COs completed their required paperwork. The
paperwork included SHU Control Log forms initialed and submitted by
Hernandez indicating that official inmate counts had been conducted at 12:01
a.m., 3:00 a.m., and 5:00 a.m. Hernandez also initialed and submitted forms
signed by the other COs assigned to that shift indicating that each required
30-minute safety check had been conducted.
The lights were not turned on again until Hernandez turned them on at
5:26 a.m. on August 23, 2012. Almost immediately thereafter, Hernandez was
notified that Bent had been found dead in his cell, hanging from a bed sheet.
Hernandez reported the incident to the main control center, notified the
medical department, and requested 911 emergency services. Bent was then
transported to Scenic Mountain Hospital in Big Spring, Texas where he was
pronounced dead. The cause of death was determined at that time to be
suicide.
An investigation commenced into the events prior to Bent's death,
focusing on the 12-hour shift during which Hernandez and the other COs
worked, beginning on August 22 and ending on August 23, 2012. Ultimately,
Hernandez admitted to entering false information on the forms indicating that
the official inmate counts had been conducted. He also admitted to initialing
and submitting the falsified reports compiled and signed by the other COs
indicating that they had conducted the mandatory 30-minute safety checks, 24
of which were required to be performed during each 12-hour shift. In total, the
4
EFTA00027125

=== Page 5 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 12 PageID 426
No. 14-11080
investigation revealed that not a single 30-minute safety check or formal
inmate count was conducted during Hernandez's shift, which amounted to
dozens of falsified log entries showing that the checks and counts had been
performed. Hernandez and the other COs admitted that the practice of
falsifying the forms to indicate that the safety checks and formal inmate counts
had been conducted was a common, long-standing practice among the officers
working in the SHU. Hernandez stated that the practice of falsifying forms
was in part a result of staff shortages, 12-hour shifts, and the assignment of
officers to the SHU who were not familiar with working there. Hernandez and
the other COs connected to the incident were terminated.
Hernandez and the other officers were charged in a 7-count indictment
for making false statements and aiding and abetting, based on having signed
and submitted falsified SHU Control Log forms and the falsified 30-minute
safety check forms. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Hernandez pled
guilty to Count 7 of the 7-count indictment, which adjudged him guilty of
violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 & 1002-false statements and aiding and
abetting-on account of having signed and submitted to the Department of
Justice the falsified SHU Control Log form certifying that the mandatory
formal inmate counts had been conducted during his shift. In accordance with
his plea agreement, Hernandez waived his right to appeal his conviction but
reserved the right to directly appeal "any issue arising from sentencing." The
district court accepted the plea agreement and entered judgment in accordance
therewith.
The presentence investigation report ("PSR") recommended a base
offense level of 6, with an increase to level 14 pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(15)(A) for an offense that involved "the conscious or reckless risk of
death or serious bodily injury." A subtraction of 2 levels for acceptance of
responsibility resulted in a total offense level of 12. Hernandez also had a
5
EFTA00027126

=== Page 6 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 12 PageID 427
No. 14-11080
criminal history category of I. This produced an advisory guidelines range of
10 to 16 months' imprisonment.
Hernandez objected to the "conscious or reckless risk" enhancement,
arguing that that the legal definition of "reckless" required that he consciously
disregard a known risk and he was not aware of Bent's suicidal intent. The
PSR Addendum maintained that Hernandez disregarded specific policies set
forth for the care and custody of high-risk inmates housed in the SHU and
information regarding Bent's mental state, including statements from other
officers indicating that he was acting "crazy" and "suicidal" hours before he
committed suicide in his cell. The Addendum further reasoned that
Hernandez's "failure to perform the duties required of [his position], which
might produce death and was reckless, resulted in the death of an inmate
known to be a risk for suicide."
Overruling Hernandez's objection to the enhancement and adopting the
findings of the PSR and PSR Addendum, the district court sentenced him to 10
months' imprisonment, stating that "it adequately address[es] the sentencing
objectives of punishment and deterrence." Hernandez was also sentenced to
two years of supervised release following the completion of his sentence and
payment of a mandatory special assessment.
Hernandez is currently serving his 10-month prison sentence and has
filed this appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
It is undisputed that Hernandez preserved his challenge to the
application of the sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(15)(A).
On appeal, Hernandez asserts two primary arguments with respect to the
sentencing enhancement. First, he contends that the district court erred by
interpreting the enhancement as requiring only objective knowledge by the
defendant of the risk of death or serious bodily injury, rather than subjective
6
EFTA00027127

=== Page 7 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 7 of 12 PageID 428
No. 14-11080
knowledge of the risk. Second, he argues that the district court erred in finding
that he should have known that inmate Bent presented a risk of suicide. We
find these arguments unpersuasive.
A. Standard of Review
"This court reviews the application of the sentencing guidelines de novo
and reviews the district court's findings of fact for clear error." See United
States U. Garcia-Guerrero, 313 F.3d 892, 895 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
"A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of
the record as a whole." See United States U. Duncan, 191 F.3d 569, 575 (1999)
(citation omitted). "[T]his court will uphold a sentence unless it was imposed
in violation of law or as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing
guidelines or it is outside the range of the applicable guideline and is
unreasonable." Garcia-Guerrero, 313 F.3d at 895 (citation omitted).
B. Analysis
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines provide under Section 2B1.1(b)(15)(A)
that, if the offense at issue involved "the conscious or reckless risk of death or
seriously bodily injury," then "increase to level 14." See U.S.S.G.
$ 2B1.1(b)(15)(A). Consequently, the primary issue in these proceedings is
whether the sentencing enhancement applied by the district court required
Hernandez to have subjective or objective knowledge of the risk of death or
serious bodily injury. As noted by both parties, the Guidelines do not define
"conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury," and the
application notes do not mention the provision. Further, this court has not
ruled on this issue before.
Several of our sister circuits, however, have ruled on this issue. The
majority of those circuits have held that the Government is not required to
prove that the defendant was subjectively aware of the risk, but rather only
that the defendant was objectively aware of the risk, i.e., that the risk "would
7
EFTA00027128

=== Page 8 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 8 of 12 PageID 429
No. 14-11080
have been obvious to a reasonable person." See United States U. Maestas, 642
F.3d 1315, 1321 (10th Cir. 2011) (reasoning that "recklessness is generally an
objective standard" and that "a defendant's conduct involves a conscious risk if
the defendant was subjectively aware" of the risk and "a defendant's conduct
involves a reckless risk if the risk
would have been obvious to a reasonable
person."); United States U. Lucien, 347 F.3d 45, 56 (2nd Cir. 2003) (determining
that the Ninth Circuit's "conclusion that a defendant does not have to
subjectively know that his or her conduct created a serious bodily risk, is
correct."); United States U. Johansson, 249 F.3d 848, 859 (9th Cir. 2001) ("We
do not believe that a defendant can escape the application of the serious risk
of injury enhancement by claiming that he was not aware that his conduct
created a serious risk, that is, a defendant does not have to subjectively know
that his conduct created the risk.").
These circuits consistently reject the Eight Circuit's holding in United
States U. McCord, Inc., which adopts the Guideline's involuntary manslaughter
definition of "reckless" as "a situation in which the defendant was aware of the
risk created by his conduct." 143 F.3d 1095, 1098 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation
omitted). A primary reason behind their rejections of this definition is that it
renders the distinction between "conscious" and "reckless" meaningless, which
is nonsensical in light of the Section's disjunctive phrasing, i.e., "conscious or
reckless risk." See Maestas, 642 F.3d at 1321; Johansson, 249 F.3d at 858;
Lucien, 347 F.3d at 56.
The facts of this case, however, do not require that we decide today
whether the enhancement applied by the district court required that
Hernandez have subjective as opposed to objective knowledge of the risk of
death or serious bodily injury. The PSR and PSR Addendum, the remainder
of the record, and Hernandez's own admissions indicate that he was
subjectively aware of the risk of death or serious bodily injury. Specifically,
8
EFTA00027129

=== Page 9 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 9 of 12 PageID 430
No. 14-11080
Hernandez conceded that when he and the other COs reported to begin their
8:00 p.m. shifts, they were told by the officers on the prior shift that Bent was
acting "crazy" and "suicidal" and had been holding up signs in his cell door that
read "death" and "help."
On appeal, Hernandez points to the medical evaluation notes taken by
prison medical personnel the day prior to Bent's suicide. These progress notes,
however, have no bearing on Hernandez's subjective knowledge of the risk of
suicide presented by Bent when he falsified the reports for his 12-hour shift on
August 22nd through 23rd. According to the record, it was Rosas-not
Hernandez-who had discussed Bent's afternoon medical evaluation with the
officers from the previous shift and who was reportedly told that Bent was
"thrown off" but "okay." However, even if Hernandez was made aware of
Rosas's conversation with the other officers, that information is negated by the
fact that COs working during the afternoon of the 1:20 p.m. evaluation
reported to Hernandez that Bent was acting "crazy" during shift change,
several hours after the evaluation. Further, there is no evidence in the record
that Hernandez reviewed Bent's medical progress notes at any point or knew
of their content prior to Bent's suicide, nor does Hernandez advance this
argument on appeal. Further, as pointed out by the Government, it seems
somewhat unlikely that officers who were unwilling to perform even one single
mandatory duty involving safety checks and formal inmate counts would have
taken the time to conduct an elective review of an inmate's medical progress
notes. Additionally, Moore stated that the COs working in the control room
that night after shift change (which included Hernandez) discussed a previous
suicide attempt which took place in the SHU earlier that month, after being
told of Bent's "crazy" and "suicidal" behavior by the officer's from the previous
shift.
9
EFTA00027130

=== Page 10 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 10 of 12 PageID 431
No. 14-11080
In sum, according to Hernandez's own admissions and the evidence in
the record, we conclude that Hernandez had subjective knowledge-less than
ten hours prior to Bent's death-that Bent presented a suicide risk.
Hernandez was told that Bent was acting "suicidal," holding up signs that said
"help" and "death," and had been moved to the SHU for high-risk inmates at
his own request. Hernandez was present in the control room when several COs
had a conversation about a previous suicide attempt by an inmate in the SHU
earlier that month. Hernandez does not claim to have reviewed Bent's medical
records or to have had personal knowledge that Bent was reported to have been
"okay" after his medical evaluation earlier that day. Regardless, even if
Hernandez did have personal knowledge of Bent's medical evaluation, that
information was negated by the statements made by the officers who were
working after Bent's medical evaluation who reported him as acting "crazy"
several hours later during the shift change. These facts clearly show that
Hernandez was made aware, almost immediately upon beginning his shift,
that Bent presented a suicide risk.
Based on this evidence, the district court made a factual determination
that Hernandez consciously or recklessly disregarded the risk of death or
serious bodily injury when he falsified the reports indicating that the safety
checks and counts had been performed when they had not. Moreover, even if
it was not feasible for Hernandez to conduct every single count or safety check,
his decision to decline to conduct even one single check or count during the
entire 12-hour shift, in light of the information he conceded he knew about
Bent's erratic behavior, supports the district court's factual determination that
Hernandez consciously or recklessly disregarded the risk. Accordingly, the
district court's conclusion that Hernandez's offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001
& 1002 involved "the conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily
injury" was "plausible in light of the record as a whole." See Duncan, 191 F.3d
10
EFTA00027131

=== Page 11 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025851 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 11 of 12 PageID 432
No. 14-11080
at 575 (citation omitted). Consequently, we hold that the district court's
application of the sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. $
2B.1(b)(15)(A) was not in error. Id. (citation omitted).
III. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the sentence of Defendant Frederick Hernandez
is affirmed.
11
EFTA00027132

=== Page 12 ===
Case: 14-11080 Document: 00513025852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2015
Case 1:14-cr-00018-O-BL Document 105 Filed 04/30/15 Page 12 of 12 PageID 433
United States Court of Appeals
FIFTH CIRCUIT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
LYLE W. CAYCE
TEL. 504-310-7700
CLERK
600 S. MAESTRI PLACE
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
April 30, 2015
Ms. Karen S. Mitchell
Northern District of Texas, Abilene
United States District Court
341 Pine Street
Room 2008
Abilene, TX 79604
No. 14-11080 USA V. Frederick Hernandez
USDC No. 1:14-CR-18-1
Dear Ms. Mitchell,
Enclosed is a copy of the judgment issued as the mandate and a
copy of the court's opinion.
Sincerely,
LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
By:
Shawn D. Henderson, Deputy Clerk
504-310-7668
CC:
Ms. Gail A. Hayworth
Mr. James Wesley Hendrix
Ms. Monica F. Markley
Mr. David E. Sloan
EFTA00027133


c1: EFTA00028843
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028843.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
Subject: Read: Question re Epstein Relativity
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:14:23 +0000
EFTA00028843


c1: EFTA00029507
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029507.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Accepted:
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:38:49 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00029507


c1: EFTA00027654
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027654.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 421 Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 1
USDC SDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DOCUMENT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 11/8/21
United States of America,
-v-
20-CR-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
ORDER
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
A conference is scheduled for November 10, 2021 to address 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. Dkt. No. 409.
The parties are ORDERED to confirm by 12:00 p.m. tomorrow, November 9, 2021, that
the alleged victims referenced in the Defendant's Rule 412 Motion have been notified of the
November 10 hearing and of their right to attend.
so ORDERED.
Dated: November 8, 2021
Alim D. Netto
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
1
EFTA00027654


c1: EFTA00029166
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029166.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: "Hutner, Florence (OCME)"
Subject: Automatic reply: Epstein FOIA Release
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 13:44:08 +0000
I am away from the office and will be checking email only periodically. If this is a matter requiring urgent assistance,
please contact the other AUSA assigned to the case.
EFTA00029166


c1: EFTA00028081
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028081.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: Conference: Jeffrey Epstein
Start Date: 2019-07-18 15:30:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-07-18 17:30:00 +0000
Location: Courtroom 17B, 500 Pearl
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2019-07-17 21:10:56 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-07-17 21:10:56 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-07-17 19:23:42 +0000
Attendee:
EFTA00028081


c1: EFTA00027869
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027869.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov" <cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov>
To:
Subject: 21-770 United States of America V. Maxwell "Notice of Appearance for Additional or Substitute
Counsel FILED"
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 14:48:42 +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 04/01/2021
Case Name:
United States of America V. Maxwell
Case Number: 21-770
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell in 21-
770, 21-58, FILED. Service date 04/01/2021 by CM/ECF. [3068185] [21-770, 21-58]
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: Notice of Additional Counsel2.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1161632333 [Date=04/01/2021] [FileNumber=3068185-0]
[7802fbab48999ec9562e05a765164c5ae17a6a27557b3e88633aa0603ce0c47ce4d5d0c5a5a842e232aa2164982d0
EFTA00027869

=== Page 2 ===
ec8f664d358a6c1fbdae4a4f03bf176c087]
EFTA00027870


c1: EFTA00029617
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029617.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To: STACEY RICHMAN
Subject: Re: Mark Epstein
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2021 01:42:58 +0000
Hi Stacey. That's not the purpose of the call, and I would prefer to speak with you first. I'll give you a call
tomorrow, thanks.
On Jul 1, 2021, at 9:24 PM, STACEY RICHMAN
wrote:
Mark would like to be on the call if that is fine with you- he is hopeful you have some
information on his brother's demise- to shed further light
STACEY RICHMAN
Law Offices of
Richman Hill & Associates PLLC
Bronx, New York 10461
(Main)
(Facsimile)
**Confidentiality Notice***
This email and any accompanying documents contains information that is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential
or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the recipient,
any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use or retention of this communication or its
substance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return
email. Thank you.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 5:03 PM
To: STACEY RICHMAN
Subject: Re: Mark Epstein
Ok, talk to you then.
On Jul 1, 2021, at 4:54 PM, STACEY RICHMAN
wrote:
This can work- my cell is probably optimal that is
STACEY RICHMAN
Law Offices of
EFTA00029617

=== Page 2 ===
Richman Hill & Associates PLLC
Bronx, New York 10461
(Main)
(Facsimile)
*Confidentiality Notice***
This email and any accompanying documents contains information that is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged,
confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not
the recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use or retention of this
communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and
notify the sender by return email. Thank you.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 4:46 PM
To: STACEY RICHMAN
Subject: RE: Mark Epstein
Thanks for the quick response. Should we say 11:30? What's the best number to call?
From: STACEY RICHMAN
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 4:45 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Mark Epstein
Yes I have a 10 am court appearance - so before or after
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 4:44 PM
To:
Subject: Mark Epstein
Hi Stacey,
Hope this finds you well. Are you available tomorrow morning for a call?
Thanks very much,
Chief, Public Corruption Unit
U.S. Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Desk
Cell
EFTA00029618


c1: EFTA00028844
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028844.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
Subject: Read: RE: Question re Epstein Relativity
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:25:48 +0000
EFTA00028844


c1: EFTA00028436
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028436.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Emailing: WOLSEN_20190726094430681_DRAFT.pdf
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:45:10 +0000
Attachments: WOLSEN_20190726094430681_DRAFT.pdf
EFTA00028436


c1: EFTA00029276
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029276.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
To:
Subject: MCC Production
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:46:41 +0000
Attachments: SDNY_00007661-SDNY_00007662.pdf;SDNY_00007663-SDNY_00007665.pdf;
SDNY_00008123_(AEO).pdf
This is ready to go out. I'll send
an email letting him know we intend to send the materials out tomorrow morning.
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Tel:
EFTA00029276


c1: EFTA00027936
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027936.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Re:
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:05:14 +0000
Thanks for sending.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 8:53 AM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: FW: Re:
FYI. Sorry, I didn't realize you weren't on this. (I realized I wasn't on it, becaus
forwarded it to me).
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 12:12 PM
To:
USANYS)
Subject: Fwd: Re:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)"
Date: August 11, 2019 at 11:52:46 AM EDT
To:
USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
N
(USANYS)"
USANYS)"
Subject: Re:
This is great. Thanks.
On Aug 11, 2019, at 11:48 AM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
Hi Geoff,
The answers to your questions are below.
1. OIG requested all of the relevant log slips from BOP this morning. To date, we have received the log for
the 30-min checks for Friday night, which shows that the same officer (Officer Noel) signed each of the 30-
min checks between 12-6am on 8/10, although there were 8 other officers on duty in the SHU that night. We
also received the report that Michael Horowitz referenced last night, which was written by a supervisor
(
;
the report states that when
responded to Epstein's cell following the emergency call, Officer
Noel admitted that they did not conduct the 3am or 5am rounds. Another officer, Officer Thomas, then said
"we messed up" and then "I messed up, she's not to blame (referring to Officer Noel), we didn't do any
rounds." We are reaching out to
today to set up an interview. We want to approach and interview the
relevant officers after we have analyzed the video we seized, as discussed below.
EFTA00027936

=== Page 2 ===
2. There was a camera in the SHU that was pointed at the hallway and would have captured who was entering
or looking into each cell. However, FBI/OIG was told yesterday by BOP that the camera had not been
functioning since Thursday. FBI seized 18 hard drives of video from BOP and are analyzing them to confirm
whether there was in fact any video. We hope to have a preliminary analysis done of the SHU camera by
tomorrow.
3. Epstein was removed from suicide watch on 7/29, and was not required to have a cellmate. His cellmate
went to Court on Friday and was released from Court. There was not an officer responsible for assigning him
a cellmate because it was not required. OIG has not interviewed any officers; we intend to start with an
interview with
as referenced above.
The autopsy is happening this morning. We will continue to keep you posted. Please let us know if you have
any questions.
Thanks,
On Aug 11, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)
wrote:
:
OAG has asked us for answers to the questions below, whenever we get them. Perhaps we can run
these questions by the OIG agent.
I assume that in addition to the log for the 30 minute checks that there are also log slips for the two head
counts at 3am and 5am. That's what I was told by BOP.
With respect to the video, is there any video in that SHU that would show if the COs did the counts?
Have they uncovered any information about why the Epstein did not have a cell mate ? Was the CO
responsible for assigning Epstein a cell mate interviewed? I understand BOP has not talked to him.
EFTA00027937


c1: EFTA00027232
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027232.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: draft response to Epstein defense preservation requests
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:56:32 +0000
Attachments: 2019-08-08,_JE,_letter_to_defense_re_preservation_requests.docx
No problem, thanks, and the edits were all straightforward. Updated version attached, everything incorporated, and can
go to
- I'm out of commission the next couple hours but back after that.
thanks,
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2019 16:36
To:
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
)
Subject: RE: draft response to Epstein defense preservation requests
Sorry for the delay. Combined edits from both of us, attached. Can you take a look and clean up - we would then like to
give
at least the option of weighing in before we send to defense counsel.
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 11:44 AM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
)
Subject: RE: draft response to Epstein defense preservation requests
Wanted to bump this from Tuesday, especially since I know you guys are out tomorrow - hopefully we can send it out
today? Happy to incorporate any edits etc. Thanks.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 15:01
To:
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: draft response to Epstein defense preservation requests
This has been in the works for a little while, due to various other things that have come up in the interim, but we didn't
want it to get lost given the discovery motion schedule. The attached is based on our conversations with
including
his email with suggested language for the prefatory language, and responds to the two attached defense letters. Happy to
discuss anytime and to incorporate comments and suggestions.
thanks,
EFTA00027232

=== Page 2 ===
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00027233


c1: EFTA00027653
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027653.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: Jeff Pagliuca
>, , Laura Menninger
Subject: 20cr330, US V. Maxwell
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 18:30:21 +0000
Attachments: 20cr330_Order_docketed_11.8.21.pdf
Counsel:
The attached Order was filed yesterday, which ordered a response by 12:00 p.m. today. See Dkt. No. 421. The
Court is not in receipt of the parties' response.
Sincerely,
Chambers of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan
EFTA00027653


c1: EFTA00028721
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028721.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
)"
)"
)"
)"
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: FW: MCC New York (Procedural Review)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 21:54:50 +0000
Attachments: Program_Statement_1210_021_ - Boards_of_Inquiry.docx
Hello Everyone,
Our HQ staff was contacted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in association with the matters concerning the
Epstein/MCC case, and informed that they would like to convene a Board of Inquiry that would review the operations at
the MCC NY. I have been asked to share this with the investigative and prosecution team for opinion and consideration.
I
requested that the BOP provide us with some specific information and details about what this would include and we were
provided with the below information and attached Program Statement. Can you all please review this information and
then can one representative from the FBI and one representative from the U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, let us know your
office's position regarding this matter? I have included SAC
and ASAC
of our Operations Branch I
(OPS I) in this email as they deal directly with the BOP HQ. Thank you all.
Special Agent in Charge
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: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 11:44 AM
To:
Subject: MCC New York
H
The BOP would like to convene a Board of Inquiry (relevant Program Statement attached) that would review operations
generally at MCC New York. Among other issues, it will look at local policy and procedures related to special housing, review
EFTA00028721

=== Page 2 ===
camera operations, and review training and staffing issues. This will not, of course, be a misconduct investigation. Should the
Board come across anything that appears to be new misconduct allegations, they will be reported consistent with normal
misconduct reporting requirements.
We are mindful of the on-going criminal investigation, and are aware that administrative charges may also arise connected to
the criminal case. We will studiously avoid creating any sort of conflict with that case. Please let me know if you have
additional questions or would like to discuss. Thanks in advance.
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Office of Internal Affairs
320 First Street, N.W., Room 600
Washington, D.C. 20534
EFTA00028722


c1: EFTA00029458
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029458.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
AC/161/2015
U
S.J. QUINNEY
PAUL G. CASSELL
COLLEGE OF LAW
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law
Telephone: 801-585-5202
cassellp@law.utah.edu
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
TM
July 31, 2015
Assistant Commissioner
Specialist Crime and Operations
New Scotland Yard
London SW1H 0BG
Re:
International Sex Trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
Ref: AC/SCO/82/201582/2015
Dear Commissioner
I write on behalf of my client
I sent you a letter on May 4,
2015 (and an amended letter a few days later). I received your response on May 11,
2015, indicating that you would look into matter and be back in touch in due course.
Having not heard back from you, I wanted to follow up to see how your
investigation is proceeding. And I wanted to reiterate
offer to help you in
any way possible in your investigation.
Thank you in advance for any information you can provide.
Sincerely,
Pical
Paul G. Cassell
CC:
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
Jack Scarola, Esq.
www.law.utah.edu Main Office (801) 581-6833 Facsimile (801) 581-6897
332 South 1400 East, Room 101
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730
EFTA00029458

=== Page 2 ===
METROPOLITAN
POLICE
TOTAL POLICING
Assistant Commissioner
Specialist Crime and Operations
New Scotland Yard
Mr Paul G. Cassell
London
332 South 1400 East
SW1H 0BG
Room 101
Salt Lake City
Telephone: 020 7230 0341
Utah
84112-0730
10th August 2015
SW6 1TR
Dear Mr Cassell,
Thank you for your letter dated 31st July regarding the allegations made against Mr. Epstein
and Ms Maxwell.
We can confirm we are progressing the matter and hope to provide you with a more detailed
response in September.
In the meantime, can you please provide written signed confirmation from
that
you are officially acting on her behalf as her legal representative. That confirmation should
include verification from her that all correspondence and content should go through you.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
Assistant Commissioner
Specialist Crime & Operations
EFTA00029459


c1: EFTA00028679
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028679.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: FW: OPR Epstein Final Report
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:31:56 +0000
Attachments: OPR_458587-v1-Epstein_Report_transmittal_to_SDNY_(letter_signed).PDF;OPR-
458557-v1-Epstein_Report_of_Investigation_and_Exhibits_pdf.PDF
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:07 AM
To: Strauss, Audrey (USANYS)
>
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(OPR)
Subject: OPR Epstein Final Report
Attached please find OPR's final Report in the Jeffrey Epstein matter, and a transmittal letter.
EFTA00028679


c1: EFTA00029489
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029489.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Question re emails
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 12:17:18 +0000
I agree.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2020, at 8:15 AM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
This seems right to me. First, this goes beyond what we said we would do or told the court we would do.
Second, in any event they are separately gathering any potentially relevant emails from the agent with victims.
Third, we have no reason to believe there were significant gaps in retention or collection for
, such
that any of his emails would be in what we already have.
Begin forwarded message:
From:
)"
Date: October 9, 2020 at 9:05:09 PM EDT
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
)"
Subject: Question re emails
Chiefs,
Today, we spoke with SA
one of the original FBI agents from the Florida investigation of Epstein.
told us he has a number of emails with AUSA
regarding the case. Our view is that we do not need to collect
those emails from
because we have already received thousands of
emails, which were collected by
OPR and should encompass any emails with the FBI about the Epstein case.
is going to send us any emails he
received from victims or witnesses. We also discussed other documents
has in his possession from the Epstein
investigation and asked him to send us any that sounded potentially discoverable.
Please let us know if this approach sounds right to you or if you would like to discuss.
Thanks,
EFTA00029489


c1: EFTA00027159
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027159.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DOC #:
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DATE FILED: 4/21/21
United States of America,
-v-
20-CR-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
ORDER
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
The Court will schedule a trial date for the severed perjury counts after trial of the non-
perjury counts is completed. Given that and in light of the representations in the Government's
April 21, 2021 letter, see Dkt. No. 227, the Court intends to defer resolution of the pending
motions to suppress (including resolution of the request for an evidentiary hearing) until after the
trial on the non-perjury counts. If either side objects, counsel shall state the basis for any
objection by letter on or before by 5pm on Thursday, April 22, 2021.
so ORDERED.
Alim D. Netto
Dated: April 21, 2021
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
EFTA00027159


c1: EFTA00028838
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028838.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS) 1"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
,
(USANYS)"
Subject: Fwd: lists of all cases hosted at PAE
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:45:34 +0000
Attachments: SDNY_Access_Statistics.xlsx; ATT00001.htm; SDNY_Data_Hosted_On_10.01.2020.x1ls;
ATT00002.htm
PAE cases from lit support
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
(USANYS)"
Date: October 20, 2020 at 2:42:27 PM EDT
To:
(USANYS) 1"
Subject: lists of all cases hosted at PAE
Attached is the spreadsheet you requested at our last meeting. The spreadsheet is called (SDNY Access Statistics.xlsx).
The other spreadsheet contains the total web hosting size as of 10/1/2020.
As I mentioned in our meeting,
requested the same list. I sent these to him today as well.
Thanks,
EFTA00028838


c1: EFTA00029424
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029424.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:24:20 +0000
Good luck tomorrow
You're going to be great, and it will be such a relief for the victims to finally get a measure
of justice. Will be cheering you on!
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
1 Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 9:59 AM
To: USANYS-CRIMINAL AUSAS <USANYS-CRIMINALAUSAS@usa.doj.gov>; USANYS-CRIMINAL PARALEGALS <USANYS-
CRIMINALPARALEGALS@usa.doj.gov>; USANYS-INVESTIGATORS <USANYS-INVESTIGATORS@usa.doj.gov>
Cc:
Subject: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
opens
There are prosecutors who would be afraid to charge a case that would require them to prove sex crimes that took place
in 1994. If you want to find them, you'll have to go to Florida. This is the Southern District of New York.
It is never too late for justice. Sometimes, you just have to have faith in the power of the truth and hope twelve jurors will
do the right thing. At this trial, brave women will take the witness stand and the truth will come out: Ghislaine Maxwell
sexually exploited underage girls. She caused unspeakable harm to vulnerable kids. It is time to hold her accountable.
vill open in the morning. Please come support. Details below. Updates to follow.
Main courtroom: 40 Foley, courtroom 318
Overflow courtrooms: 110, 506, 905, and 906. There is also a conference room on the first floor (room 130) that has a
very small monitor with a live feed just for our office.
Timing: we'll start at 8:30 a.m. with peremptory challenges, and we expect to go straight to preliminary instructions and
opening statements. In order to get a seat, we'd recommend that you go over early.
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00029424


c1: EFTA00027460
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027460.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Notice to Epstein Family
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2021 15:51:44 +0000
Good thought to do this.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 2, 2021, at 11:50 AM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
I spoke with Mark Epstein's lawyer (Stacey Richman) just now, and she was enormously appreciative of the head's up,
and asked how Mark could get a copy of everything that's been released, because he's been dying to get his hands on
anything related to what happened. I told her to submit a FOIA request and to let us know when she had done so, and
we'd make sure the BOP received it.
told me that he would make sure BOP responds in a timely
fashion.
OCME was similarly very appreciative of the head's up.
is making the production this afternoon.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 2:04 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Notice to Epstein Family
Sound right to me.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 1:38 PM
To:
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: Notice to Epstein Family
I spoke with the GC of OCME and she was very appreciative of the head's up. She asked whether we intended to provide
notice to the family about the autopsy report's release, which is something they would normally do. As we discussed,
we have not provided a head's up to the Estate given that they are on notice of the FOIA litigation. As you may recall,
though, we met with Epstein's brother in the course of our investigation, and he is represented by Stacey Richman.
After giving it some thought, I don't see much of a downside to giving Stacey a call on Friday to give her a head's up
about the production of the autopsy report, which seems to be the human thing to do. Do you guys have any
objection?
Thanks,
EFTA00027460

=== Page 2 ===
Chief, Public Corruption Unit
U.S. Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Desk
Cell
EFTA00027461


c1: EFTA00027666
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027666.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA
JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2,
Petitioners,
vs.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (DE 361); the United States's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE
408); Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) and Jane Doe 1 and
Jane Doe 2's Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections by
Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414). The Motions are fully briefed and ripe
for review. The Court has carefully considered the Motions and is otherwise fully advised in the
premises.
I. Background
The facts, as culled from affidavits, exhibits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
reasonably inferred, for the purpose of these motions, are as follows:
From between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor
girls, including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (hereinafter, "Petitioners"), at his mansion
in Palm Beach, Florida, and elsewhere in the United States and overseas. (Government Resp. to
Petitioner's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter, "DE 407" at 1 1.) Because
EFTA00027666

=== Page 2 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 2 of 33
Epstein and his co-conspirators knowingly traveled in interstate and international commerce to
sexually abuse Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and others, they committed violations of not only Florida
law, but also federal law. (DE 407 at 2.) In addition to his own sexual abuse of the victims,
Epstein directed other persons to abuse the girls sexually. (DE 407 at 1 (3.) Epstein used paid
employees to find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain
minors not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others.
(DE 407 at 8.)
In 2005, the Town of Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") received a complaint
from the parents of a 14 year old girl about her sexual abuse by Jeffery Epstein. The PBPD
ultimately identified approximately 20 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 who were sexually
abused by Epstein. (DE 407 at 4.) In 2006, at the request of the PBPD, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Epstein and his personal
assistants used the facilities of interstate commerce to induce girls between the ages of 14 and 17
to engage in illegal sexual activities. (DE 407 at 1 5.) The FBI ultimately determined that both
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were victims of sexual abuse by Epstein while they were minors. Jane
Doe 1 provided information about her abuse and Jane Doe 2's abuse to the FBI on August 7,
2007. (DE 407 at 1 6.)
From January of 2007 through September of 2007, discussions took place between the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") and Jeffrey Epstein's
attorneys. (DE 407 at 9.) On February 1, 2007, Epstein's defense team sent a 24-page letter to
the Office going over what they intended to present during a meeting at the Office the same day.
(DE 407 at 1 10.)
2
EFTA00027667

=== Page 3 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 3 of 33
By March 15, 2007, the Office was sending letters to victims informing them of their
rights pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). (DE 407 at 1 11.) By May of 2007,
the Office had drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum and a 53-page indictment outlining
numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein. (DE 407 at 1 12.) On or about June 7,
2007, FBI agents had delivered to Jane Doe 1 a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The
notification letter promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect
Jane Doe 1's rights, including "the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United
States in the case" and " to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving [a] plea." The notification further stated that, "[a]t this time, your case is under
investigation." (DE 407 at 1 13.) Jane Doe 1 relied on those representations and believed that the
Government would protect those rights and keep her informed about the progress of her case.
(DE 407 at 1 14.)
On July 6, 2007, Epstein's lawyers sent a 23-page letter lodging numerous arguments to
persuade the Office that no federal crimes had been committed by him. (DE 407 at "I 15.) By
August 3, 2007, the Government had rejected Epstein's various arguments against federal
1
On or about August 11, 2006, Jane Doe 2 received the same CVRA letter. (DE 407 at 1
7.)
Initially, Jane Doe 2 was unwilling to provide any information to the FBI or the Office
unless she was assured her statements would not be used against her. She also described Epstein
as "an awesome man" and stated that she hoped "nothing happens to" him. (DE 415 at " 14-
15.) This was during the time period where Jane Doe 2 had obtained counsel paid for by Epstein.
(Jane Doe 2 Decl. 11 5-7.)
Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA")
("line prosecutor"
") testified that both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 received letters describing their rights
under the CVRA. Although Jane Doe 1 and 2 were given
and the FBI agent's
name and phone number, neither contacted either of them.
(
Decl. 1 5, DE 403-19.)
3
EFTA00027668

=== Page 4 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 4 of 33
charges and sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating, "[w]e would reiterate that the agreement to
Section 2255 [a civil restitution provision] liability applies to all of the minor girls identified
during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis of an initial planned charging
instrument." (DE 407 at 1 17.) On September 10, 2007, multiple drafts of a non-prosecution
agreement ("NPA") had been exchanged between Epstein's counsel and the Office. (DE 407 at 1
18.)
On September 12, 2007, while attempting to create alternative charges against Epstein,
the Office expressed concern about "the effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house is
in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" because the Government
had "no evidence of any assaults occurring either on Mr. Epstein's plane or offshore from his
residence." (DE 407 at 1 19.) On September 13, 2007, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's
counsel indicating an effort to come up with a solution to the aforementioned concern and she
stated that she had been "spending some quality time with Title 18 looking for misdemeanors."
The line prosecutor further indicated, "I know that someone mentioned there being activity on an
airplane. I just want to make sure that there is a factual basis for the plea that the agents can
confirm." Epstein's counsel responded, "[a]lready thinking about the same statutes." (DE 407 at
1 20.)
On September 14, 2007, after having spoken on the telephone about the subject matter
of the September 13 emails, Epstein's counsel and the line prosecutor exchanged emails
including a proposed plea agreement for Epstein to plead guilty to assaulting one of his
coconspirators. (DE 407 at 21.) On September 15, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to
the Epstein defense team raising concerns about a resolution that would not involve one of
4
EFTA00027669

=== Page 5 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 5 of 33
Epstein's minor victims and stating:
I have gotten some negative reaction to the assault charge with [a
co-conspirator] as the victim, since she is considered one of the main
perpetrators of the offenses that we planned to charge in the
indictment. Can you talk to Mr. Epstein about a young woman named
[Jane Doe]? We have hearsay evidence that she traveled on Mr.
Epstein's airplane when she was under 18, in around the 2000 or
2001 time frame.
(DE 407 at 22.)
On September 16, 2007, the line prosecutor corresponded with Epstein's counsel
about having Epstein plead guilty to obstruction of justice for pressuring one of his co-conspirators
not to turn over evidence or complying with a previously-served grand jury subpoena. (DE 407 at
(23.) The Office also stated, "On an 'avoid the press' note, I believe that Mr. Epstein's airplane was
in Miami on the day of the [co-conspirator] telephone call. If he was in Miami-Dade County at the
time, then I can file the charge in the District Court in Miami, which will hopefully cut the press
coverage significantly." They also discussed having Epstein plead guilty to a second charge of
assaulting a different co-conspirator. (DE 407 at 1 24.)
On September 16, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to Epstein's counsel indicating that
the Office did not like the factual basis for the proposed charges as the Office was "not
investigating Mr. Epstein [for] abusing his girlfriend." (DE 407 at 25.) The correspondence
further stated:
[i.e., AUSA
recommended that some of the timing issues be
addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are
trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes.
I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I
will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all
of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Also, we do not
5
EFTA00027670

=== Page 6 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 6 of 33
have the power to bind Immigration
there is no plan to try to proceed on any
immigration charges against either Ms. [co-conspirator] or Ms. [coconspirator]
(Ex. 7, DE 361-7.)
In the same email, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel about a meeting
outside the U.S. Attorney's Office: "Maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet 'off
campus' somewhere, that is fine." (DE 407 at 1 27.) On about September 16, 2007, Epstein's
counsel provided a proposed NPA to the Government that extended immunity from federal
prosecution not only to Epstein, but also to certain co-conspirators. (DE 407 at 28.)
On September 17, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz:
"Please send [a document] to my home e-mail address - [redacted] and give me a call on my cell
[redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow." (DE 407 at 29.) On September 17,
2007, Lefkowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have
drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the deferred prosecution agreement
public?" (DE 407 at 1 30.)
On September 18, 2007, the Office responded: "A non-prosecution agreement would
not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably
would be subject to a FOIA request, but it is not something that we would distribute without
compulsory process." (DE 407 at 31.) On September 20, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office wrote:
"On the issue about 18 USC 2255, we seem to be miles apart. Your most recent version not only had
me binding the girls to a trust fund administered by the state court, but also promising that they will
give up their 2255 rights In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the office may be more
willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others." (DE 407 at 1 32.)
6
EFTA00027671

=== Page 7 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 7 of 33
On September 21, 2007, Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer wrote the line
prosecutor about the proposed agreement and added: "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons
I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a
conversation." (DE 407 at 1 33.) On September 21, 2007, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's
counsel stating, "I think that the attached addresses the concerns about having an unlimited number
of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls whom I do not represent." (DE 407 at 1 34.) On
September 23, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an email to Lefkowitz stating: "It is factually
accurate that the list we are going to give you are persons we have identified as victims. If we did
not think they were victims, they would have no right to bring suit." (DE 407 at 35.)
On September 24, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to a prospective representative for
the Epstein victims, entitled "Conflict Check." The email confirmed the girls' status as victims,
stating: "Please keep this confidential because these are minor victims. This is a preliminary list."
Later on September 24, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to Lefkowitz stating: "I have
compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors." (DE 407 at 1 36.) As correspondence continued on
September 24, 2007, and the NPA was being executed, Lefkowitz sent an email to the line
prosecutor stating:
- Please do whatever you can to keep this [i.e., the NPA] from becoming
public." (DE 407 at 1 37.)
On September 24, 2007, Epstein and the Office formally reached an agreement whereby the
United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida.
Epstein and the Office accordingly entered into a NPA reflecting such an agreement. (DE 407 at 1
38.) The NPA provided that "the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith
approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for [the victims], who shall be
7
EFTA00027672

=== Page 8 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 8 of 33
paid for by Epstein." The NPA also provided that if any of the victims elected to bring suit under
18 U.S.C. $ 2255, they must agree to waive any other claim for damages. As part of the NPA,
Epstein would not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court and waived his right
to contest liability and damages. (NPA, DE 361-62.)
Among other provisions, the NPA expanded immunity to any "potential coconspirator"
of Epstein's: "In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation
in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this
agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any
potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to
or
(DE 407 at 1 40.) The NPA also provided that: "The parties
anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives
a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the
agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure." (DE 407 at 1 41.)
From the time the FBI began investigating Epstein until September 24, 2007-when
the NPA was concluded-the Office never conferred with the victims about a NPA or told the
victims that such an agreement was under consideration. (
Decl. 17, DE 361-64; DE
407 at 1 43.) Many, if not all, other similarly-situated victims received standard CVRA victim
notification letters substantively identical to those sent to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. (DE 407 at
1 44.) The Office did not consult or confer with any of the victims about the NPA before it was
signed. (DE 407 at 11 45-46.)
Epstein's counsel was aware that the Office was deliberately keeping the NPA secret from
the victims and, indeed, had sought assurances to that effect. (DE 407 at 1 48.) After the NPA was
8
EFTA00027673

=== Page 9 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 9 of 33
signed, Epstein's counsel and the Office began negotiations about whether the victims would be told
about the NPA. (DE 407 at 1 49.) It was a deviation from the Government's standard practice to
negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications. (DE 407 at 1 50.)
On September 24, 2007, the Office sent an email to Lefkowitz:
Thank you, Jay. I have forwarded your message only to [United States Attorney]
Alex [Acosta],
and
I don't anticipate it going any further than that.
When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other will
be placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since it also contains
identifying information about the girls.
When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for the girls, we can
discuss what I can tell him and the girls about the agreement. I know that
promised Chief
an update when a resolution was achieved Rolando
is
calling, but Rolando knows not to tell Chief
about the money issue, just about
what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that has been
agreed to. Rolando also is telling Chief
not to disclose the outcome to anyone.
(DE 407 at 1 52.)
On September 25, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz stating: "And
can we have a conference call to discuss what I may disclose to
the girls regarding the
agreement." (DE 407 at 1 53.) Also on September 25, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to
Lefkowitz which stated in part: "They [Ted Babbitt, Stuart Grossman, Chris Searcy, [L]ake
Lytal] are all very good personal injury lawyers, but I have concerns about whether there would
be an inherent tension because they may feel that THEY might make more money (and get a lot
more press coverage) if they proceed outside the Terms of the plea agreement. (Sorry - I just
have a bias against plaintiffs' attorneys.) One nice thing about Bert is that he is in Miami where
there has been almost no coverage of this case." (DE 407 at 54.)
On September 26, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she
9
EFTA00027674

=== Page 10 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 10 of 33
stated: "Hi Jay - Can you give me a call at
-[xxx-xxxx] this morning? I am meeting with the
agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls." (DE
407 at 1 55.) On September 27, 2007, the attorney representative for the victims emailed the
Office and asked whether he could get a copy of the indictment or plea agreement to find out
"exactly what Epstein concedes to in the civil case." (Sept. 27, 2007 email, DE 362-2.) Upon
inquiry from the Office, Lefkowitz responded by stating that the attorney representative
"certainly [] should not get a copy of any indictment." (DE 407 at 1 57.) That same day, the line
prosecutor informed Epstein's counsel of concerns raised by the attorney representative for the
girls. Specifically, "[t]he concern is, if all 40 girls decide they want to sue, they don't want to be
in a situation where Mr. Epstein says this is getting too expensive, we won't pay anymore
attorneys' fees." (DE 407 at 1 58.)
Also on that same day, the line prosecutor sent an email to state prosecutors Lanna
Belohlavek and Barry Krischer: "Can you let me know when Mr. Epstein is going to enter his
guilty plea and what judge that will be in front of? I know the agents and I would really like to
be there, "incognito." (DE 407 at 59.)
On October 3, 2007, the Office sent a proposed letter that would have gone to a special
master for selecting an attorney representative for the victims under the NPA's compensation
procedure. The letter described the facts of the Epstein case as follows: "Mr. Epstein, through his
assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to engage in lewd
conduct in exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has identified 40
young women who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 2255. Some of those
women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went there as many as 100 times or more. Some
10
EFTA00027675

=== Page 11 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 11 of 33
of the women's conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein
masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse." (DE 407
at 1 60.)
On October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta stating, in
pertinent part: "Neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified
individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of the attorney
representative and the settlement process. Not only would that violate the confidentiality of the
agreement, but Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to the identified
individuals at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential that we participate in crafting
mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals." The letter further proposed
that the attorney representative for the victims be instructed that "[t]he details regarding the
United States's investigation of this matter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential.
You may not make public statements regarding this matter." (DE 407 at 1 61.)
U.S. Attorney Acosta then met with Lefkowitz for breakfast and Lefkowitz followed up with
a letter stating, "I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October
12 meeting in which you
assured me that your Office would not
contact any of the identified
individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this
matter." (DE 407 at 1 63.)
On October 24, 2007, AUSA
sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, proposing an
addendum to the NPA clarifying the procedures for the third-party representative for the victims
under the NPA's compensation provisions. (DE 407 at [64.) On October 25, 2007, AUSA
sent a letter to Retired Judge Davis about selecting an attorney to represent the victims under the
11
EFTA00027676

=== Page 12 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 12 of 33
NPA's compensation procedure. (DE 407 at 1 65.)
On about October 26 or 27, 2007, Special Agents
and
met in person with Jane Doe 1. They explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he
would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related
to the payment of damages. (DE 407 at " 70.) According to Jane Doe 1, the Agents did not explain
that the NPA had already been signed. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. 1 5, DE 361-26.) Jane Doe 1's
understanding was that the federal investigation would continue. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. 1 6.) In contrast,
Special Agent
stated that the meeting with Jane Doe 1 was to advise her of the main
terms of the NPA.²
(
Decl. 1 8, DE 403-18.) After the meeting, Special Agent
became concerned about what would happen if Epstein breached the NPA, and thought
that if the victims were aware of the NPA, the provision about monetary damages could be grounds
for impeachment of the victims and herself.
(
Decl. 1 9.) According to Special Agent
,
the investigation of Epstein continued through 2008.
(
Decl. 1 11.)
In addition to Jane Doe 1, FBI agents only talked to two other victims out of the 34
identified victims about the "general terms" of the NPA, including the provision providing a
federal civil remedy to the victims. (DE 407 at 76.) After these meetings with three victims,
Epstein's defense team complained. (DE 407 at 77.)
On about November 27, 2007, AUSA
sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, (with a
copy to U.S. Attorney Acosta) stating that the Office had a statutory obligation to notify the victims
about Epstein's plea to state charges that was part of the NPA:
2
Special Agent
also stated that on August 7, 2007, Jane Doe 1 never asked to
confer with anyone from the government about charging decisions or any resolution of the
matter.
(
Decl. 7.)
12
EFTA00027677

=== Page 13 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 13 of 33
The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the
victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the
agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion.
Tomorrow will make one full week since you were formally notified of the selection.
I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide
me with a good faith objection to Judge Davis's selection [as special master for
selecting legal counsel for victims pursuing claims against Epstein] by COB
tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims.
Should you give me the go-head on [victim representative]
selection by COB
tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the
victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th.
(DE 407 at 1 79.)
On November 28, 2007, the Government sent an email to Lefkowitz attaching a letter
dated November 29, 2007 (the apparent date upon which it was intended to be mailed) and
explained that "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has
been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement
containing the following terms." The proposed letter then spelled out a number of the provisions
in the NPA, including that because Epstein's plea of guilty to state charges was "part of the
resolution of the federal investigation," the victims were "entitled to be present and to make a
statement under oath at the state sentencing." (DE 407 at 1 80.)
On November 29, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta objecting to the
proposed victim notification letter, stating that it is inappropriate for any letter to be sent to the
victims before Epstein entered his plea or had been sentenced. Lefkowitz also told the Government
that the victims should not be invited to the state sentencing, that they should not be encouraged to
contact law enforcement officials, and that encouraging the attorney representative to do anything
other than get paid by Epstein to settle the cases was to encourage an ethical conflict. (DE 407 at 1
13
EFTA00027678

=== Page 14 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 14 of 33
82.)
On about November 30, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to one of Epstein's
defense attorneys, Kenneth Starr, stating: "I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim
notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options
with your client." The letter also explained that the line prosecutor had informed U.S. Attorney
Acosta "that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the
investigation phase of this matter" despite the fact that the "[r]ule of law
now requires this
District to consider the victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement." (DE 407 at
1 83.) On December 5, 2007, Starr sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta (with copy to AUSA
) asking about issuance of victim notification letters and stating: "While we believe that it
is wholly inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances, it is certainly
inappropriate to issue this letter without affording us the right to review it." (DE 407 at 1 85.)
On about December 6, 2007, AUSA
sent a letter to Lefkowitz stating in part:
[E]ach of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims.
[T]he Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr. Epstein's 'interactions'
with these individuals. This conclusion is based upon a thorough and proper
investigation - one in which none of the victims was informed of any right to receive
damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim.
[T]he Office can say, without hesitation, that the evidence demonstrates that each
person on the list was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal behavior.
Finally, let me address your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. You
write that you don't understand the basis for the Office's belief that it is appropriate
to notify the victims. Pursuant to the "Justice for All Act of 2004,' crime victims are
entitled to: "The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court
proceeding involving the crime' and the 'right not to be excluded from any such
public court proceeding 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a)(2) & (3). Section 3771 also
commands that "employees of the Department of Justice engaged in the detection,
investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime
14
EFTA00027679

=== Page 15 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 15 of 33
victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).' 18
U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1)
With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, the
statute requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of: the status
of the investigation, the filing of charges against a suspected offender, and the
acceptance of a plea. 42 U.S.C. 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C. 3771, these sections
are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution
Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a
state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be
appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the
U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligations. [T]he Office believes that it has
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr.
Epstein's criminal conduct while the victim was a minor. The law requires us to treat
all victims "with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18
U.S.C. 3771(a)(8).
The letter included a footnote stating: "Unlike the State's investigation, the federal investigation
shows criminal conduct by Mr. Epstein at least as early as 2001, so all of the victims were
minors at the time of the offense." (DE 407 at 1 83.)
On December 7, 2007, defense attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez sent a letter to AUSA
, requesting "that the Office hold off on sending any victim notification letters." No letters
were sent in December of 2007. (DE 407 at 1 88.) On December 13, 2007, the line prosecutor sent
a letter to Lefkowitz stating that "You raised objections to any victim notification, and no
further notifications were done." (DE 407 at " 89.) On December 19, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta
sent a letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez stating, "I understand that the defense objects to the victims being
given notice of time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. We intend to provide
victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of
the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notices of the state
proceedings. (DE 407 at 1 90.)
15
EFTA00027680

=== Page 16 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 16 of 33
In January of 2008, any requirement that Epstein carry out his obligations under the NPA was
delayed while he sought higher level review within the Justice Department. (DE 407 at 92.) On
January 10, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were sent victim notification letters from the FBI
advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and
we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at 1 93.)
The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case
in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office,
or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at 1 94.) Other victims received
the same letters as sent to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. (DE 407 at 95.)
According to the declaration of Jane Doe 1, she believed that criminal prosecution of Epstein
was important and she wanted to be consulted by prosecutors before any resolution. Based on the
letters received, she believed the Government would contact her before reaching any final
resolution. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. 9.) On January 31, 2008, Jane Doe 1 met with FBI Agents and an
AUSA from the U.S. Attorney's Office. She provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse
of her. The AUSA did not disclose to Jane Doe 1 at this meeting that they had already negotiated
a NPA with Epstein. (DE 407 at 1 97.) According to the declaration of Jane Doe 2, while she
recognizes she did not initially help the investigation, she later tried to cooperate with the
investigation but was never given an opportunity to cooperate with the investigation.3 (Jane Doe 2
3
The Government believed that a negotiated resolution was in the best interest of the
Office and the victims as a whole based on information obtained from the victims and the agents
assigned to the case.
(
Decl.
1 19.) The Government also believed that Epstein was
trying to set aside the NPA and therefore the Government needed to be prepared for a
prosecution. (
Decl. 34.) Petitioners object to this evidence, claiming the Government
previously claimed work product and similar protections over internal materials. Given that the
Court is ruling in favor of Petitioners on the present motions, the Court need not address this
16
EFTA00027681

=== Page 17 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 17 of 33
Decl. 13-14, DE 361-27.)
On March 19, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a lengthy email to a prospective pro bono
attorney for one of Epstein's victims who had been subpoenaed to appear at a deposition. The email
listed the attorneys representing Epstein, the targets of the investigation, and recounted in detail the
investigation that had been conducted to that point. The email did not reveal the fact that Epstein had
signed the NPA in September 2007. (DE 407 at 98.)
On May 30, 2008, Jane Doe 5, who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the Office,
received a letter from the FBI advising her that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can
be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough
investigation." (DE 407 at " 99.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged
the victims' rights under the CVRA (DE 407 at 1 100.)
In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line
prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to
meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims.
The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the future.
Edwards was led to believe federal charges could still be filed, with no mention whatsoever of the
existence of the NPA or any other possible resolution to the case. (DE 407 at 1 101.)
At the end of the call, the line prosecutor asked Edwards to send any information
that he wanted considered by the Office in determining whether to file federal charges. The line
prosecutor did not inform Edwards about the NPA. (DE 407 at 1 102.) On June 19, 2008, Edwards
issue. To the extent it might have an impact on future rulings, Petitioners may reassert this
argument if and when appropriate.
17
EFTA00027682

=== Page 18 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 18 of 33
sent an email to the line prosecutor requesting to meet and discuss plans. (DE 407 at 1 103.)
On June 23, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an email to Lefkowitz stating that the
Deputy Attorney General had completed his review of the Epstein matter and "determined that
federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein's case [wa]s appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein ha[d] until
the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the
agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." (DE 407 at 1 105.)
On or about June 27, 2008, the Office called Edwards to provide notice to his clients
regarding the entry of Epstein's guilty plea in state court. (DE 407 at 1 107.) According to Edwards,
the line prosecutor only told him that Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prosecution.
He was not told that the state plea was related to the federal investigation or that the state plea would
resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court.
(Edwards Decl. 17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that
his clients could address the state court.
(
Decl. 1 38, DE 403-19.)
On or before June 30, 2008, the Office prepared a draft victim notification to be sent
to the victims. The notification was designed to inform the victims of the provisions of the deferral
of federal prosecution in favor of state charges. The notification letter began by describing Epstein's
guilty plea in the past tense: "On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein entered a plea of guilty to
violations of Florida statutes forbidding the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and
felony solicitation of prostitution." Later, a substantively identical letter was prepared for Epstein's
and his counsel's review. (DE 407 at 1 110.)
On June 30, 2008, the Office sent an e-mail to Epstein's counsel: "The FBI has received
several calls regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I do not know whether the title of the
18
EFTA00027683

=== Page 19 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 19 of 33
document was disclosed when the Agreement was filed under seal, but the FBI and our office are
declining comment if asked." (DE 407 at 1 111.) That same day, Epstein pled guilty to state law
solicitation of prostitution charges. (DE 407 at 1 112.) Immediately following the June 30, 2008
hearing, the line prosecutor told one of the victims' attorneys that Epstein had "pled guilty today in
state court." (DE 407 at 1 113.) Also after the plea, the line prosecutor emailed the assistant state
attorney a copy of the NPA to be filed under seal. (July 1, 2008 email, DE 362-38.)
On June 30, 2008, based on what she had been told by the Government, Jane Doe 1
thought that the Office was still investigating and pursuing her case. She did not receive notice
that Epstein's state guilty plea affected her rights in any way. If she had been told that the state
plea had some connection to blocking the prosecution of her case, she would have attended and
tried to object to the judge to prevent that plea from going forward. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. 1 13.)
According to the line prosecutor, Edwards did not tell her that Jane Doe 1 wanted to meet with her
before a resolution was reached. (
Decl. 1 37, DE 403-19.)
On July 3, 2008, as specifically directed by the Office, Edwards sent a letter to the Office
communicating the wishes of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 5 that federal charges be filed
against Epstein: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the
fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward
with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein
has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this
very dangerous sexual predator." (DE 407 at 1 118.)
On July 7, 2008, the line prosecutor corresponded with Epstein's counsel seeking his signed
agreement concerning a notification letter to the victims before beginning the distribution of that
19
EFTA00027684

=== Page 20 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 20 of 33
letter. (DE 407 at 120.) That same day, Jane Doe 1 filed an emergency petition for enforcement
of her rights under the CVRA. (DE 407 at 126.) On July 9, 2008, Edwards saw the first reference
to the NPA when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition.
(Edwards Decl. 21.)
On July 8, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating that
victims would be informed about the civil compensation provision of the NPA the next day:
In accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, on June 30,
2008, the United States Attorney's Office provided you with a list of thirty-one
individuals "whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an
enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein."
In deference to your vacation, we
allowed you a week to provide us with any objections or requested modifications
of the list and/or the Notification language. Yesterday, I contacted you via
telephone and e-mail, but received no response. Accordingly, the United States
hereby notifies you that it will distribute the victim notifications tomorrow, July 9,
2008, to each of the thirty-two identified victims, either directly or via their
counsel.
(DE 407 at 127.)
On July 9, 2008, Epstein's counsel sent a letter to the line prosecutor raising concerns
about the notifications, and suggesting modifications to the notification letter. Epstein's counsel
also objected to the victim notification letters containing certain information about the NPA. (DE
407 at
128.) The line prosecutor responded: "Without such an express Acknowledgment by
Mr. Epstein that the notice contains the substance of that Agreement, I believe that the victims
will have justification to petition for the entire agreement, which is contrary to the confidentiality
clause that the parties have signed." (DE 407 at 1 129.) That same day, the U.S. Attorney's
Office sent victim notification letters to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 5, via their attorney, Edwards,
and to other identified victims of Epstein. That notification contained a written explanation of
20
EFTA00027685

=== Page 21 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 21 of 33
some of the civil compensation provisions of the NPA. The notification did not provide the full
terms of the NPA.
On July 10, 2008, Epstein's counsel continued to protest victim notification as
evidenced by an email to the line prosecutor stating, "we respectfully request a reasonable
opportunity to review and comment on a draft of the modified notification letter you intend to
mail before you send it." (DE 407 at 131.)
On August 10, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed a motion seeking release of the
NPA. (DE 407 at 1 136.) On August 14, 2008, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's counsel
stating that the court has "ordered us to make the Agreement available to the plaintiffs." (DE 407
at 1 141.)
On August 18, 2008, Lefkowitz wrote the line prosecutor that Epstein objected to
disclosure of the terms of the NPA, but that Epstein would "cooperate with the government to
reach an agreement as to substance of the notification to be sent to the government's list of
individuals. Based on the Agreement, the information contained in the notification should be
limited to (1) the language provided in the Agreement dealing with civil restitution (paragraphs
7-10) and (2) the contact information of the selected attorney representative. We object to the
inclusion of additional information about the investigation of Mr. Epstein, the terms of the
Agreement other than paragraphs 7-10 and the identity of other identified individuals." (DE 407
at 1 143.) On August 21, 2008, the Government sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating that,
"[c]opies of the victim notifications will continue to be provided to counsel for Mr. Epstein."
Jane Doe 2 was not informed of the contents of the NPA until August 28, 2008, when the
line prosecutor provided a copy to Edwards. (DE 407 at 1 146.) On September 2, 2008, the line
21
EFTA00027686

=== Page 22 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 22 of 33
prosecutor sent an email to Epstein's counsel stating, "I will start sending out the victim
notifications today. In accordance with your request, I have changed the language regarding the
victims' right to receive a copy of the Agreement." (DE 407 at 1 147.) On September 2 and 3,
2008, the Office sent to Jane Doe 1 and other identified victims amended notification letters,
stating "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and
sentence." (Sept. 3, 2008 letter, DE 363-66; (DE 407 at "I 148.)
On September 16, 2008, attorney Jeffrey Herman, who represented several Epstein
victims, wrote to the line prosecutor to object to the restitution procedures established in the
NPA after learning that another attorney, established through the NPA, would be making
unsolicited contacts to the victims. Mr. Herman explained that the notification letters were
"misleading" because they referred generally to a waiver of "any other claim for damages,"
without informing them that this waiver might include a valuable punitive damages claim against
an alleged billionaire. (DE 407 at 9 152.) On September 17, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an
email to State Attorney Barry Krischer, explaining that the NPA "contain[ed] a confidentiality
provision that require[ed] us to inform Mr. Epstein's counsel before making any disclosure."
(DE 407 at 1 153.)
Around this same time period, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed actions in Palm Beach
County, seeking money damages from Epstein from sexually abusing them. (Petitioners' Resp. to
Gov't's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter "DE 415") at 1 8-9.) Eventually,
they received monetary settlements of their lawsuits. (DE 415 at 1 12.)
In moving for summary judgment, the Petitioners make the following arguments in
support of their contention that the Government violated their CVRA rights. The Government
22
EFTA00027687

=== Page 23 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 23 of 33
violated Petitioners' right to confer under the CVRA: (1) when the Government was negotiating
and signing the NPA; (2) when the Government sent letters telling Petitioners to be patient while
the Government completed its investigation and (3) when the Government did not tell the victims
that the state plea would extinguish the federal case. Petitioners also claim the Government
violated their right to be treated with fairness under the CVRA by concealing the negotiations of
the NPA. Additionally, Petitioners contend the Government violated their rights to reasonable
and accurate notice when it concealed that the NPA and the federal investigation were implicated
in the state court proceeding.
In moving for and responding to summary judgment, the Government contends that there
is no right to notice or conferral about a NPA; it was reasonable for the Government to send
letters to victims while continuing to investigate the case because the Government could not
assume that Epstein would plead guilty; and the line prosecutor contacted Petitioners' attorneys
about the state court plea hearing. The Government also claims it did not violate the right to
reasonable, accurate and timely notice because the CVRA does not create any right to notice of
state court proceedings and, in any event, the Government gave notice. The Government asserts
it did not treat the victims unfairly and used its best efforts to comply with the CVRA, including
complying with the Attorney General's guidelines for victim assistance. Furthermore, the
Government argues that Petitioners are equitably estopped from challenging the NPA because
they relied upon the NPA in their state court civil actions against Epstein. Lastly, the
Government contends that Petitioners are judicially estopped from challenging the validity of the
NPA because they have asserted mutually inconsistent positions; namely, that the NPA is invalid
in federal court but was binding on Epstein in state court.
23
EFTA00027688

=== Page 24 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 24 of 33
II. Summary Judgment Standard
The Court may grant summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). The stringent burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact lies with the moving party. Celotex Corp. V. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court
should not grant summary judgment unless it is clear that a trial is unnecessary, Anderson V.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved
against the moving party. Adickes V. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).
The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for
its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. To discharge this
burden, the movant must point out to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party's case. Id. at 325.
After the movant has met its burden under Rule 56(a), the burden of production shifts and
the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as
to the material facts." Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co. V. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586 (1986). "A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the
assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record
or showing that the materials
cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party
cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) and (B).
Essentially, so long as the non-moving party has had an ample opportunity to conduct
discovery, it must come forward with affirmative evidence to support its claim. Anderson, 477
24
EFTA00027689

=== Page 25 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 25 of 33
U.S. at 257. "A mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not
suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party."
Walker V. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990). If the evidence advanced by the non-
moving party "is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, then summary judgment may
be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 249-50.
III. Discussion
The CVRA was designed to protect victims' rights and ensure their involvement in the
criminal justice process. United States V. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4th Cir. 2007); Kenna
V. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The [CVRA] was enacted to make
crime victims full participants in the criminal justice system."). The statute enumerates the
following ten rights:
(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court
proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape
of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the
court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the
victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that
proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and
25
EFTA00027690

=== Page 26 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 26 of 33
privacy.
(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred
prosecution agreement.
(10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services
described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims'
Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice.
18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a).
This Court previously held the following with respect to the CVRA: First, the rights
under the CVRA attach before the Government brings formal charges against a defendant. Does
V. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1341 (S.D. Fla. 2011). Second, the CVRA authorizes the
rescission or "reopening" of a prosecutorial agreement, including a non-prosecution agreement,
reached in violation of a prosecutor's conferral obligations under the statute. Doe V. United
States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1267 (S.D. Fla. 2013). Third, section 3771(d)(5) of the CVRA
authorizes the setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements, despite the fact that the
particular statutory enforcement provision expressly refers to the reopening of a plea or sentence.
Id. at 1267. Fourth, the "reasonable right to confer
in the case" extends to the pre-charge
state of criminal investigations and proceedings. Id. Fifth, the federal sex offense crimes
involving minors allegedly committed by Epstein renders these Petitioners crime victims under
the CVRA. Id. at 1269. Sixth, "questions pertaining to [the] equitable defense[s] are properly
left for resolution after development of a full evidentiary record." Id. at 1269 n. 6.
Here, it is undisputed that the Government entered into a NPA with Epstein without
conferring with Petitioners during its negotiation and signing. Instead, the Government sent
letters to the victims requesting their "patience" with the investigation even after the Government
26
EFTA00027691

=== Page 27 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 27 of 33
entered into the NPA. At a bare minimum, the CVRA required the Government to inform
Petitioners that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein. Although the
binding effect of the NPA was contingent upon Epstein pleading guilty to the state charges, that
contingency was out of the control of the Government. The Government's hands were
permanently tied if Epstein fulfilled his obligations under the NPA. Thus, Petitioners and the
other victims should have been notified of the Government's intention to take that course of
action before it bound itself under the NPA. Had the Petitioners been informed about the
Government's intention to forego federal prosecution of Epstein in deference to him pleading
guilty to state charges, Petitioners could have conferred with the attorney for the Government and
provided input. In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008) (there are rights under the CVRA
including the "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government"). Hence, the
Government would have been able to "ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of the
[non-prosecution agreement]." Id. Indeed, it is this type of communication between prosecutors
and victims that was intended by the passage of the CVRA. See United States V. Heaton, 458 F.
Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of
interstate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted
until government consulted with victim); United States V. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO,
2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that
the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was
conferral with the prosecutor concerning any critical stage or disposition of the case).
Particularly problematic was the Government's decision to conceal the existence of the
27
EFTA00027692

=== Page 28 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 28 of 33
NPA and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility. When
the Government gives information to victims, it cannot be misleading. While the Government
spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the NPA with Epstein's attorneys,
scant information was shared with victims. Instead, the victims were told to be "patient" while
the investigation proceeded.
The Government, however, interprets the CVRA as only obligating the prosecutor to
answer inquiries by a crime victim and does not impose a duty on the prosecutor to give notice
about case developments, other than what is required in section 3771(a)(2). Such an
interpretation is in direct contravention of the intent of the CVRA. See Ingrassia, 2005 WL
2875220, at *17 n.11 (Senate debate explaining the right to confer is "intended to be expansive"
including the right of victim to confer "concerning any critical state of disposition of the case").
In any event, no meaningful conferral could take place as long as the Government chose to
conceal the existence of the NPA from the victims.5
Nor does the Court agree with the Government that the 2015 amendment to the CVRA,
section 3771(a)(9), which gave victims the "right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea
4
Even if the Court accepted the Government's version of the facts relative to the Agent
having told Jane Doe 1 the "main terms" of the NPA (which is left undefined), the victims were
not told about it until after it was signed and the Government was bound. This precluded the
Government from obtaining any input from the victims.
5 The Government devotes time to distinguishing between the words "confer" and
"notice" and suggesting that "confer" is more limited in scope than "notice." Nothing about the
definition of confer, however, suggests it is limited to one party bearing the burden of
communication. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary (last visited January 7, 2019) ("to compare views or take counsel"); Blacks Law
Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ("to hold a conference, to consult with one another").
28
EFTA00027693

=== Page 29 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 29 of 33
bargain or deferred prosecution agreement" specifically excluded the right of victims to be
informed of a non-prosecution agreement. Prior to this amendment, this Court held that the right
to confer extended to the pre-charge state of criminal investigations and proceedings. Doe, 950
F. Supp. 2d at 1267; see also 157 Cong. Rec. S7060-01, 157 Cong. Rec. S7060-01, S7060
(CVRA co-sponsor Senator Jon Kyl's 2011 letter to the Attorney General, explaining that
"Congress intended the CVRA to broadly protect crime victims throughout the criminal justice
process-from the investigative phases to the final conclusion of a case.")
The 2015 amendment did not serve to repeal or restrict the obligations of the Government
to confer with victims in the early stages of a case. Instead, the 2015 amendment clarified that
certain events, such as plea agreements or deferred prosecution agreements, must be conveyed to
the crime victim. Put another way, the 2015 amendment codified what the courts had been
interpreting the CVRA to require, such as entitlement to notice of a plea bargain. See In re Dean,
527 F.3d at 394 ("the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims
of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of
a plea bargain"); United States V. Okun, No. CRIM. 3:08CR132, 2009 WL 790042, at *2 (E.D.
Va. Mar. 24, 2009) (the statutory language of the CVRA gives the victims' rights before the
accepting of plea agreements).
To the extent the Government relies upon the "interpretive canon, expressio unius est
exclusio alterius, 'expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left
unmentioned" the Court is not persuaded. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. V. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 80
(2002) (quoting United States V. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002)). "The force of any negative
implication
depends on context." Marx V. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013).
29
EFTA00027694

=== Page 30 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 30 of 33
"[T]he expressio unius canon does not apply unless it is fair to suppose that Congress considered
the unnamed possibility and meant to say no to it, and that the canon can be overcome by
contrary indications that adopting a particular rule or statute was probably not meant to signal
any exclusion." Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The expansive context of the CVRA lends itself to only one interpretation; namely, that
victims should be notified of significant events resulting in resolution of their case without a
trial. See Kenna V. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D.Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("[t]he
statute was enacted to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice system");
Heaton, 458 F. Supp. 2d at 1273 (the right to confer is "not limited to particular proceedings" but
is "expansive" and applies broadly to "any critical stage or disposition of the case"). Reading
into the statute a negative implication that victims need not be informed of non-prosecution
agreements, and only informed of the more common events of plea bargains or deferred
prosecution agreements, would be inconsistent with the goal of the CVRA.6 In the context of
plea agreements, the CVRA provides victims with rights prior to the acceptance of plea
agreements. See In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394; United States V. Okun, No. CRIM. 3:08CR132,
2009 WL 790042, at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009). Furthermore, victims obtain rights under the
CVRA even before prosecution. Okum, 2009 WL 790042, at *2 (citing In re Dean, 527 F.3d at
394). Based on this authority, the Court concludes that the CVRA must extend to conferral about
non-prosecution agreements.
6 A NPA entered into without notice has a more damaging impact on the victims than a
plea agreement entered into without notice. When a plea agreement is entered into without
notice, the victims will at least have an opportunity to provide input to a judge at sentencing.
Once a NPA is entered into without notice, the matter is closed and the victims have no
opportunity to be heard regarding any aspect of the case.
30
EFTA00027695

=== Page 31 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 31 of 33
Next, the Government claims it did not violate the right to confer when, in January of
2008, it sent letters to the victims counseling patience because, at that time, Epstein's attorneys
were seeking review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice. As indicated
previously, however, at this point, the Government had bound itself to the terms of the NPA
unless Epstein failed to comply with its terms. It was a material omission for the Government to
suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had
already bound itself not to prosecute. While Epstein was within his rights to attempt to persuade
higher authorities within the Department of Justice to overrule the prosecutorial decisions of the
U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, the CVRA was designed to give the
victims the same opportunity to attempt to affect prosecutorial decisions before they became
final. Instead, the Office engaged in lengthy negotiations with Epstein that included repeated
assurances that the NPA would not be "made public or filed with the Court." (DE 407 at 1 31.)
Nor did the Justice Department guidelines create an exemption from the CRVA's
statutory requirements. Although the Government points to guidelines that conflicted with the
requirements of the CVRA (by restricting CVRA rights until after a formal indictment), the
Court is not persuaded that the guidelines were the basis for the Government's decision to
withhold information about the NPA from the victims. If that had been the case, the Government
would not have sent the victim letters telling them that they had rights protected under the
CVRA. Nor would they have told Epstein's attorneys that it had obligations to notify the victims.
In any event, an agency's own "interpretation" of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen
by Congress." Mohasco Corp. V. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980).
Next, the Court rejects the Government's contention that Jane Doe 2 is not protected by
31
EFTA00027696

=== Page 32 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 32 of 33
the CVRA because she made statements favorable to Epstein early in the investigation.⁷ There is
no dispute that Epstein sexually abused Jane Doe 2 while she was a minor. Therefore, regardless
of her comments to the prosecutor, she was a victim. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e) (the CVRA
defines a victim as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a
Federal offense"); In re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 2008) ("to determine a crime
victim, then, first, we identify the behavior constituting "commission of a Federal offense.'
Second, we identify the direct and proximate effects of that behavior on parties other than the
United States. If the criminal behavior causes a party direct and proximate harmful effects, the
party is a victim under the CVRA.").
The Court need not resolve the factual questions surrounding what and when the victims
were told about the state court proceeding and whether a state court proceeding is covered by the
CVRA. Under the facts of this case, once the Government failed to advise the victims about its
intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred.
Nor does the Court need to consider the Government's estoppel arguments at this time.
These arguments relate only to the remedy, and not the determination of whether there was a
CVRA violation. Therefore, the Court will address this issue at the appropriate juncture.
Lastly, the Court will address the Government's argument that its prosecutorial discretion
permitted it to enter into the NPA. The Government correctly notes that the CVRA provides that
"[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney
General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C.A. $ 3771(d)(6). The Court is not ruling
7 In fact, the Office considered Jane Doe 2 a victim as early as August of 2006 when it
sent her a CVRA letter.
32
EFTA00027697

=== Page 33 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 33 of 33
that the decision not to prosecute was improper. The Court is simply ruling that, under the facts
of this case, there was a violation of the victims rights under the CVRA.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1)
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361) is
GRANTED to the extent that Petitioners' right to conferral under the CVRA was
violated.
2)
The United States's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408) is DENIED.
3)
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4)
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and
Similar Protections by Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5)
The parties should confer and inform the Court within 15 days of the date of
entry of this Order how they wish to proceed on determining the issue of what
remedy, if any, should be applied in view of the violation.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida, this 21st day of February, 2019.
Kn
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
33
EFTA00027698


c1: EFTA00028714
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028714.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
"
(USANYS)"
Subject: Accepted: Epstein Meeting
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 16:30:43 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00028714


c1: EFTA00029154
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029154.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From
To
Co
Subject: Maxwell Discovery Production from Relativity
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 22:33:27 +0000
The Maxwell team has completed another round of review on Relativity. Would you please work with the vendor to get
the following materials from the "Florida investigation FOIA files" folder in the "US V Epstein" database prepped for
production as follows:
The 298 documents tagged "Produce As Is" within the "Florida investigation FOIA files" folder need a bates
number
The 1,668 documents tagged "Produce As Confidential" within the "Florida investigation FOIA files" folder need
a bates number and to be stamped CONFIDENTIAL
The 2 documents tagged "Produce As Highly Confidential" within the "Florida investigation FOIA files" folder
need a bates number and to be stamped HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks very much for your help.
EFTA00029154


c1: EFTA00029535
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029535.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Pomerantz, Lara (USANYS)" <LPomerantz@usa.doj.gov>
To: Christian Everdell <CEverdell@CohenGresser.com>, "Comey, Maurene (USANYS)"
<MComey@usa.doj.gov>, "Moe, Alison (USANYS)" <AMoe@usa.doj.gov>, "Rohrbach,
Andrew (USANYS)" <ARohrbach@usa.doj.gov>
Cc: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>, Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>,
'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA V. Maxwell Order
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:59:57 +0000
Attachments: 2021-06-30_GM_joint_letter_re_redactions_to_suppression_opinion.docx
Chris,
We agree. Attached please find a draft joint letter to the Court conveying the parties' position. Please let us know if you
have any proposed revisions to the letter.
Best,
Lara
From: Christian Everdell <CEverdell@CohenGresser.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 2:46 PM
To: Comey, Maurene (USANYS) <MComey@usa.doj.gov>; Moe, Alison (USANYS) <AMoe@usa.doj.gov>; Pomerantz, Lara
(USANYS) <LPomerantz@usa.doj.gov>; Rohrbach, Andrew (USANYS) <ARohrbach@usa.doj.gov>
Cc: Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com>; Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM'
<bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: FW: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA V. Maxwell Order
All -
We have no redactions to propose to the opinion or the other documents mentioned in the court's order. Will you be
filing the joint letter?
Regards,
Chris
From: NYSD ECF Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov [mailto:NYSD ECF Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 2:11 PM
To: CourtMail@nysd.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA V. Maxwell Order
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this
e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions.
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York
Notice of Electronic Filing
EFTA00029535

=== Page 2 ===
The following transaction was entered on 6/30/2021 at 2:11 PM EDT and filed on 6/30/2021
Case Name:
USA V. Maxwell
Case Number:
1:20-cr-00330-AJN
Filer:
Document Number: 305
Docket Text:
ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Pursuant to the Court's order of June 25, 2021 (Dkt. No. 303),
any proposed redactions to the Court's opinion on Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence
must be filed no later than today, June 30, 2021. Any proposed redactions to the other
documents ordered unsealed in that order must be filed no later than July 2, 2021. The parties
shall file a joint letter by each of these dates informing the Court if no redactions are sought.
so ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/30/2021) (Inl)
1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
David Boies, II dboies@bsfllp.com, NYC_Managing_Clerk@bsfllp.com
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca jpagliuca@hmflaw.com, nsimmons@hmflaw.com
Laura A. Menninger Imenninger@hmflaw.com, alundberg@hmflaw.com, hrogers@hmflaw.com,
nsimmons@hmflaw.com
Bobbi C Sternheim bc@sternheimlaw.com, bcsternheim@mac.com, ecf@sternheimlaw.com
Christian R. Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com, autodocket@cohengresser.com
Mark Stewart Cohen mcohen@cohengresser.com, Mark-Cohen-1234@ecf.pacerpro.com,
autodocket@cohengresser.com, managingclerksoffice@cohengresser.com
Sigrid S. McCawley smccawley@bsfllp.com, NYC_Managing_Clerk@bsflp.com, achristie@bsfllp.com,
lambersley@bsfllp.com, sigrid-mccawley-4908@ecf.pacerpro.com
Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov,
USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
Alison Gainfort Moe alison.moe@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
Alex Rossmiller alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
Maurene Ryan Comey maurene.comey@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov,
USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
Andrew Rohrbach Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov, caseview.ecf@usdoj.gov, usanys.ecf@usdoj.gov
1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been delivered by other means to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
EFTA00029536

=== Page 3 ===
[STAMP dcecfStamp ID=1008691343 [Date=6/30/2021] [FileNumber=26121187-
0][3c5a70929198acf931c1f73c5a2a597c98feed5c5d0403d4c6f1f89b4baad04043
ea20ed7c38e46a961e8ff8db631a8a67a274479c460bebe5b89e28cce654c1]]
EFTA00029537


c1: EFTA00029292
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029292.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject:
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 20:20:23 +0000
Attachments: 2021.10.05_scheduling_order.pdf
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00029292


c1: EFTA00028375
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028375.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Additional warrant app
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 01:28:32 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 2019.07.07_Media_SW.pdf.
Judge Moses,
Thank you, I was just about to send the application, which I'm attaching here for Your Honor's consideration. I have copied
the affiant (Special Agent
), who is available at the Court's convenience this evening.
Apologies for the late hour, and thank you in advance for taking the time to review this evening. I am available a
if there are any questions.
Respectfully,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From:
Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2019 9:23 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Additional warrant app
If you have the application and proposed warrant ready by 11:00 I will review it tonight.
If not, since it does not seem to be an emergency, you should present the application to
Judge Pitman tomorrow.
Barbara Moses
U.S. Magistrate Judge
EFTA00028375


c1: EFTA00029243
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029243.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: letter re Maxwell S2 indictment
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 14:42:02 +0000
Attachments: 2021-04-09_Govt_response_to_GM_letter_re_S2_Indictment_v3.docx;
Maxwell_Letter_Re-_S2_.pdf
l'll start on this
From:
)
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 10:35 AM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
>;
(USANYS)
is
Subject: letter re Maxwell S2 indictment
Hi
and
Attached for review is a draft response to defense counsel's letter complaining about the S2 Indictment. I've also attached
the defense letter for reference. Our response is due EOD tomorrow.
Thanks,
EFTA00029243


c1: EFTA00027571
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027571.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Civilian Crime Report from A. Lombardino suggesting a prisoner has info about Epstein
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 15:48:34 +0000
Attachments: Anthony_Lombardino_CCR_Submission_07_17_20.pdf
Attached is a Civilian Crime Report for you to review. We sent our usual letter with the
form to be completed, but this particular submission does not really fit that so we might
not get anything more, but let us know if we do that you want to see it.
, please
make a note in the log. Thank you.
EFTA00027571


c1: EFTA00029185
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029185.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: UMR
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 12:30:21 +0000
Absolutely
On May 20, 2021, at 08:22,
(USANYS)
wrote:
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 N
212-637-2200
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
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
EFTA00029185

=== Page 2 ===
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.
EFTA00029186


c1: EFTA00028062
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028062.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: 20-3061 United States of America V. Maxwell "Appellant/Petitioner Brief FILED"
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:46:18 +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 09/24/2020
Case Name:
United States of America V. Maxwell
Case Number: 20-3061
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
BRIEF, on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, FILED. Service date 09/24/2020 by CM/ECF.[2938278] [20-
3061]
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Adam Mueller, -:
Laura Menninger, -:
Gerard Whidbee, Deputy Clerk:
Notice will be stored in the notice cart for:
Gerard Whidbee, Deputy Clerk
Quality Control 1
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: Appellant/Petitioner Brief FILED
Original Filename: 2020.09.24 Opening Brief.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1161632333 [Date=09/24/2020] [FileNumber=2938278-0]
[53c3d8ee058d47650c53c830817c0bf0760589e0a623342a0819699e9a4f23be4e73890e01f1d87eb6db6625156c
EFTA00028062

=== Page 2 ===
8e183dad9cd541421b14234c2465bf91c242]
EFTA00028063


c1: EFTA00027110
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027110.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: we are all in my office
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 19:01:21 +0000
Hey I'm so sorry, got dragged into an Epstein meeting
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 14:46
To:
Subject: we are all in my office
Special Agent
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
(w)
(m)
EFTA00027110


c1: EFTA00027429
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027429.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: MDC letter (due today)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 19:20:55 +0000
Attachments: Ltr_to_Hon_Nathan_12.04.20.pdf
MDC legal sent us this letter, which they're planning to submit to the Court today. We're going to try to get on the phone
with them this afternoon to discuss.
EFTA00027429


c1: EFTA00028929
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028929.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 UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO
SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA
TO BOIES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
EFTA00028929

=== Page 2 ===
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
i
Table of Authorities
ii
Table of Exhibits
iv
Introduction and Summary of the Argument
1
I.
The Facts
2
II.
The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion.
6
A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible.
7
B.
Assuming the Government's Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the Government
Still Misled the Court.
17
III.
The Materiality of the Government's False Statements.
18
IV.
The Remedy for the Government's Misconduct.
20
A.
Pursuant to its Inherent Power, this Court Should Suppress the Evidence Obtained
from Boies Schiller and Dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the Fruits of that
Evidence.
20
B.
At a Minimum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell May Inquire
into the Circumstances Surrounding the Government's Misrepresentation to
Judge McMahon
26
Conclusion
27
Certificate of Service
29
i
EFTA00028930

=== Page 3 ===
Table of Authorities
Cases
Abdell V. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006)
8
Berger V. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
24
Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
11
V. Maxwel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019)
19, 20
Chemical Bank V. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
14, 18, 19
Elkins V. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960)
20
Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC V. Commonwealth Mgmt. Assocs., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805
(S.D.N.Y. 2001)
25
Franks V. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)
20, 22
V. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
8, 15
Hampton V. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976)
20
In re WinNet R CJSC, 2017 WL 1373918 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017)
24
Martindell V. Int 'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979)
18, 21
McNabb V. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943)
20
Morales V. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
24
Rea V. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956)
20
United States V. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013)
23
United States V. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980)
20, 22, 25, 26
United States V. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008)
22
United States V. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018)
23, 25
United States V. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996)
20
United States V. Paredes-Cordova, No. S1 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776
(S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009)
25
ii
EFTA00028931

=== Page 4 ===
United States V. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980)
20
United States V. Pena, 961 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1992)
25
United States V. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973)
21
United States V. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997)
23
Wang V. Reno, 81 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1996)
2
Young V. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987)
24
Other Authorities
Stephen Rex
,
Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020)
11
U.S. Dept. of Justice, JUSTICE MANUAL, JM $ 9-11.151
15
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2
19
N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(d)
24
N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8, cmt. [6A]
16
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. CONST. amend. IV
22
U.S. CONST. amend. V
21
U.S. CONST. amend. VI
26
iii
EFTA00028932

=== Page 5 ===
Table of Exhibits
EXHIBIT J: Notes of Feb. 11, 2021 Call with AUSA
(Sealed)
EXHIBIT K: Handwritten Notes by AUSA
of Meeting and Contacts with Peter Skinner,
Stan Pottinger, and Brad Edwards
EXHIBIT L: Email String Between Peter Skinner and AUSA
, cc'ing Stan Pottinger, Brad
Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley (Feb. 29, 2016-Mar. 5, 2016) (Sealed)
EXHIBIT M: Emails between AUSA
and Chief of the Criminal Division (Mar. 3, 2016)
(Sealed)
EXHIBIT N: Emails between AUSA
and AUSA
and other AUSAs (Nov. 30,
2018-Dec. 6, 2018) (Sealed)
EXHIBIT O: Email from Stan Pottinger to AUSA
, cc'ing Brad Edwards and Sigrid
McCawley, re Daniel Siad (Mar. 3, 2016) (Sealed)
EXHIBIT P:
Supplemental Privilege Log, Apr. 4, 2016
EXHIBIT Q: Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten
Deposition Limit,
V. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.) (June 16, 2016)
iv
EFTA00028933

=== Page 6 ===
Ghislaine Maxwell submits this reply in support of her Motion to suppress all evidence
the government obtained from a grand jury subpoena it issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and
to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena.
Introduction and Summary of the Argument
If the government meant to reassure this Court that nothing improper happened, its
Response was anything but reassuring.
The government now confesses that it had significant and substantial contact with
attorneys in 2016-while the
defamation suit against Maxwell was
on-going-as part of an effort to instigate a criminal prosecution of Maxwell for allegedly
trafficking
and others and then lying under oath. Doubling down on an increasingly
farfetched story, however, the government insists that nothing improper occurred when it
misrepresented these contacts to the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York.
Contrary to the government's portrayal of events, what happened here is that a prosecutor
from the public corruption unit of the United States Attorney's Office, in an ex parte proceeding,
affirmatively misled Chief Judge McMahon to circumvent a Protective Order entered by one of
her colleagues. The prosecutor then exploited the material he obtained to indict Maxwell.
Had the prosecutor not affirmatively misled Judge McMahon, the government would
never have obtained the 90,000 pages of material it now possesses, material that is central-
indeed, essential-to its case against Maxwell. It would be the height of irony, not to mention
injustice, to allow the government to convict Maxwell of testifying falsely when the government
could not have indicted Maxwell but for the false statements it made to a federal judge.
"In a situation like this, the judiciary
may exercise its supervisory power to make it
clear that the misconduct was serious, that the government's unwillingness to own up to it was
more serious still, and that steps must be taken to avoid a recurrence of this chain of events."
1
EFTA00028934

=== Page 7 ===
Wang V. Reno, 81 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. 1996). For the reasons given below, the exercise of this
Court's supervisory authority is called for here.
I. The Facts
Pressed into some minimal measure of candor, the government now admits the following
facts are true:
On February 29, 2016, AUSA
,
the Human Trafficking Coordinator and
Project Safe Childhood Coordinator for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of New York, Ex. J, p 1, met with Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Stan
Pottinger, and Brad Edwards, who represented
, Ex. K, p 1.
The meeting concerned
allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking by
Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J, pp 1-3.
At the meeting,
attorneys told AUSA
the following:
That Maxwell was Epstein's "head recruiter" of underage victims. Id. at 2.
That
was underage when she was brought to New York "for training
by Maxwell and Epstein [in] how to service men." Id. at 3.
That
had a pending civil lawsuit against Maxwell for defamation
alleging that Maxwell had recruited
to be trafficked and abused by
Epstein. Id. at 4, 7.
That Maxwell was asserting truth as a defense to
defamation claim.
Id. at 4, 7.
That Maxwell had photos of naked underage girls on her computer. Id. at 6.¹
1 No such photos were found on or produced from any computers associated with Maxwell.
2
EFTA00028935

=== Page 8 ===
That Maxwell and Epstein-friend
"took sexually explicit
photos of
regularly.' Id.
That, as a birthday present, Maxwell gave Epstein a sexually explicit photo of
taken when
was sixteen.3 Id.
That Epstein hung the photo on one of his walls.4 Id.
That
has a note in Maxwell's handwriting with the name of another
victim. Id. at 8.⁵
That
was "live in" sex slave from 2000-2002.6 Id. at 3.
That there were other victims of Epstein and Maxwell, including
, id. at 7, who is apparently Accuser-1 in this case, and another woman
whose description matches
, id. at 9, who is apparently
Accuser-3.
That Accuser-1 was "highly credible." Id. at 7.
That Epstein and Maxwell used "the same MO with" Accuser-3 that they used
with
Id. at 7, 9.
And that
"wants [a] prosecution." Id. at 7.
2
Maxwell denies ever taking any photos of
, and we have seen no sexually explicit photo
of
in any of the civil or criminal document productions.
3 Not only did Maxwell not meet
until
was seventeen years old, Maxwell never
provided any such photo to Epstein, nor, to our knowledge, has any such photo ever been produced, in the
civil or criminal cases.
4
Again, we have not seen any such photo produced in any discovery, either in the civil or
criminal cases.
5 We are aware of no note in Maxwell's handwriting being produced in the
action, or the
criminal discovery.
6
was in fact living with her fiancé at the time and held multiple other jobs, as later
confirmed through depositions and documents in the
action.
3
EFTA00028936

=== Page 9 ===
The attorneys promised to send AUSA
"affidavits and depositions" to
support their request for a prosecution. Id. at 8.
Calling the meeting "intriguing," AUSA
emailed the Chief of the Criminal
Division three days later and proposed to "talk over" the facts with him. Ex. M, pp 1-
2. He agreed. Id. at 1.
In the days and weeks after the February 29 meeting, there were several emails
between
attorneys and AUSA
Exs. L & N.
There was also at least one phone call. Ex. K, at 4.
attorneys provided AUSA
with documents as promised. Id. at 2; see
also Ex. L, p 2.
Most importantly, the government now admits that AUSA
, the prosecutor in
charge of the case who appeared before Chief Judge McMahon on April 9, 2019, knew all of this
and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that
there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when
he claimed the investigation first began.
None of these statements by AUSA
to Judge McMahon were true.
As described above,
attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J.
Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA
attorneys told Judge
Sweet-who was presiding over
defamation against Maxwell-that there was an
4
EFTA00028937

=== Page 10 ===
"ongoing criminal investigation" into Maxwell, and they withheld from discovery 57 separate
documents, invoking the "law enforcement privilege." Ex. P.⁷
In late November 2018 and early December 2018-just two months before AUSA
filed the ex parte request before Judge McMahon seeking modification of the civil
Protective Order entered by Judge Sweet-AUSA
shared with AUSA
, as
well as one other member of the trial team and the heads of the Public Corruption Unit,
everything she learned from her contacts with
attorneys. Ex. N.
AUSA
gave AUSA
and his colleagues: (1) nine pages of detailed,
hand-written notes from the February 29 meeting; (2) the emails she received from
attorneys; and (3) all the documents provided to her by
attorneys. Id. Some of what she
gave AUSA
included material Boies Schiller attorneys designated a short time later
as "confidential" under Judge Sweet's Protective Order, including flight records and Palm Beach
Police Department Records.
AUSA
took an active role in gathering these materials from AUSA
Copying AUSA
, AUSA
had emailed AUSA
on December 5, 2018,
to obtain all the records of the February 29 meeting with
attorneys. Id. at 1. In that
email, AUSA
also asked AUSA
whether, after February 29, she met "again
with [Peter Skinner] or anyone else." Id.
7 Two other aspects to the privilege log are notable: (a) In the
litigation, Boies Schiller
did not produce its emails with the U.S. Attorney's Office to Maxwell, despite the fact that they were
directly responsive to a Request for Production of Documents Maxwell served just a couple of weeks
after those emails were sent; and (b) Peter Skinner, the Boies Schiller attorney at the AUSA
meeting who also sent emails to AUSA
after the meeting, Ex. L, is not even listed on the
privilege log, though the log purports to reflect all email communications about the "ongoing criminal
investigation" that Boies Schiller had tried to initiate just a couple of weeks earlier.
5
EFTA00028938

=== Page 11 ===
Barely twelve hours later, when AUSA
hadn't responded, AUSA
took it upon himself to follow up, emailing AUSA
"Just quickly following up on this -
we're trying to get a complete handle on the landscape - thanks!" Id.
AUSA
responded one hour later: "Just went through my files and found a folder
w/ the notes I took and the documents they brought me." Id. She turned everything over to
AUSA
and other prosecutors in the office, including one other prosecutor on this trial
team. Id. AUSA
did not answer AUSA
original question: "[D]id [she] meet
again with [Peter Skinner] or anyone else" after the February 29, 2016 meeting with
attorneys. Id. But AUSA
certainly did not deny a second meeting or a subsequent phone
call occurred. Id.
By the end of the day on December 6, 2018, AUSA
had in his possession
everything
and her attorneys provided to AUSA
as well as AUSA
,
extensive hand-written notes. He also had access to AUSA
herself for any follow up
questions. By the end of the day, AUSA
had a "complete handle on the landscape,"
just as he asked for a couple hours earlier.
When AUSA
appeared before Judge McMahon barely four months later,
however, he told her none of this, unequivocally and falsely disavowing any role by Boies
Schiller in fomenting the investigation and denying any contacts between Boies Schiller and his
office before November 2018. Even though AUSA
had a "complete handle on the
landscape," he painted an entirely different, false picture for Judge McMahon.
II. The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion.
Confronted with evidence of AUSA
misrepresentations to Judge McMahon,
the government has filed a Response reluctantly admitting that the U.S. Attorney's Office had
sustained contact with Boies Schiller in 2016. Even so, the government tries its best to minimize
6
EFTA00028939

=== Page 12 ===
the significance of those interactions and of AUSA
misrepresentations to an Article
III federal judge. This Court should not permit the government to whitewash its conduct.
The discovery provided to Maxwell in response to her Motion rebuts every defense the
government now offers of its conduct. And if that weren't enough, the government's defense
fails on its own terms, because if this Court were to assume its truth (an assumption the
government has not earned), AUSA
statements to Judge McMahon would still have
been demonstratively and materially false.
A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible.
Discovery provided to Maxwell in response to her Motion rebuts every defense the
government now offers of its conduct.
Defense 1: The February 29, 2016 meeting was only about Epstein.
AUSA
contemporaneous hand-written notes entirely undermine the
government's claim that the February 29, 2016 meeting was about Epstein only and had nothing
to do with Maxwell. Resp. at 89 & n.39. See Ex. J. AUSA
notes refer to Maxwell as
Epstein's "head recruiter" of underage girls; they document allegations that Maxwell "regularly"
took sexually explicit photos of
and other underage girls, which she kept on her
computer; they allege that Maxwell gave one such photo to Epstein as a birthday present, which
he hung on his wall; they claim that Maxwell, along with Epstein, brought
to New York
to personally "train[] [her] [in] how to service men;" and they assert that Maxwell used the
"same MO" to recruit other girls to the sex trafficking scheme. The contents of AUSA
notes belie any notion that
attorneys-who at that very moment were suing Maxwell
7
EFTA00028940

=== Page 13 ===
for defamation for denying she had trafficked and abused
-were focused only on Epstein
and not on Maxwell.
Despite AUSA
contemporaneous notes showing that the meeting very much
concerned Maxwell, the government now claims that "the pitch was to investigate Epstein, not
Maxwell," and that the discussion included only "passing references to Maxwell." Resp. at 89
n.39. The government bases this argument exclusively on a phone call prosecutors conducted
with AUSA
on February 11, 2021, five years after the February 29 meeting actually took
place. Ex. K. This Court should reject the government's revisionist history.
The best evidence of what happened on February 29, 2016-at least the best evidence the
government has produced so far-is AUSA
contemporaneous notes.8 Ex. J.; Abdell V.
City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14,
2006) (denying motion to quash third-party subpoena because "contemporaneous statements of
witnesses constitute best evidence"). Although the government attached these notes to its
Response, Resp. Ex. 5, the government does not rely on them as part of its argument, choosing
instead to rely on AUSA
2021 recollection of what happened, Resp. at 62-66, 89 &
n.39, 92 (citing Ex. 4).
8 It appears the government does not actually want to know anything beyond what AUSA
remembers (or doesn't remember) of 2016. All the government did in response to Maxwell's Motion was
telephone AUSA
The government apparently: (1) did not search its system for any and all emails
from, to, or about David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and
(2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA
such as the other attendees of the meeting
(Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA
talked to about her
contacts with
attorneys.
Most conspicuous, of course, is the government's failure to interview AUSA
or secure
an affidavit from him. If this Court does not grant Maxwell's Motion on the papers, only an evidentiary
hearing can address these issues.
8
EFTA00028941

=== Page 14 ===
But in her 2021 interview, AUSA
mostly disclaimed a memory of what happened
in 2016. Ex. K. The phrases "does not recall," "does not remember," or some similar expression
of lack of memory appear at least thirty-two times in the notes of the government's 2021 call
with AUSA
Id.
Many of AUSA
disclaimers, however, are simply not credible. For example,
AUSA
claimed not to "have an independent memory of the
V. Maxwell
[defamation] lawsuit being mentioned" during the meeting, id. at 1, even though her notes are
replete with references to the lawsuit, Ex. J. After reviewing her notes, AUSA
denied
that they refreshed her memory. Ex. K, p 1.
AUSA
similarly denied remembering whether
attorneys ever provided
her with documents, id. at 6, despite the email from Peter Skinner just hours after the February
29 meeting providing AUSA
with numerous documents, Ex. L, p 1-2, and despite the
fact that AUSA
in 2018 personally delivered those documents to AUSA
,
AUSA
, and one member of the prosecution team in this case, Ex. N, p 1 (12/6/2018
Email to AUSA
: "Just went through my files and found a folder w/ the notes I took
and the documents they brought me. Want to come by?").
When AUSA
did claim to remember what transpired, her memory was often
inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence. Take just one example. "To [her] knowledge,"
AUSA
said, she did "not receive[] any discovery materials from any civil case." Ex. K, p
6. That is not correct. The government admits that AUSA
received from
attorneys, and turned over to AUSA
and others in the office, including flight records
and Palm Beach Police Department Records. Resp. at 66 & n.2. Both of these documents were
produced in discovery in the civil case.
9
EFTA00028942

=== Page 15 ===
From any perspective, therefore, AUSA
2021 version of events is not worthy of
credence, nor is the government's Response to Maxwell's Motion, which adopts AUSA
version of events (to the extent she claims to remember them) while ignoring the
contemporaneous evidence of what actually happened. The record is surpassingly clear: In
February 2016 and the weeks and months after,
attorneys "pitched" a prosecution of
Maxwell and Epstein.9
Defense 2: The government was not asked to consider a perjury charge
against Maxwell.
Noting that the February 29, 2016 meeting occurred before Maxwell's two depositions
(April and July 2016), the government insists that
attorneys did not ask (indeed could
not have asked) the government to consider charging Maxwell with perjury. Resp. at 63. Again,
the documentary evidence belies this claim.
First, AUSA
contemporaneous notes say that
wants prosecution." Ex.
J, p 7. AUSA
knew what
attorneys were after, which is why she emailed the
Chief of the Criminal Division just days after the meeting to discuss the "intriguing" case, Ex.
M.
Second, in the 2021 interview with prosecutors, AUSA
did not deny that
attorneys asked her to consider a perjury prosecution. Ex. K, p 5. Instead, AUSA
said that she "does not remember one way or the other if any of the attorneys referenced
the possibility of perjury." Id.
9 There are other indications as well that
attorneys pressed AUSA
to investigate
Maxwell. For example, while AUSA
notes say
"is wanting to cooperate," Ex.
J, p 2, they say nothing of the sort about Maxwell, instead describing her as Epstein's "head recruiter," id.
See also Ex. O.
10
EFTA00028943

=== Page 16 ===
Third, in the same interview, AUSA
admitted that she contemplated a perjury
prosecution, and she "recalls thinking that a perjury investigation would have
challenges."
Ex. K, p 5. Left unexplained by the government in its Response to Maxwell's Motion is why
AUSA
would have contemplated a perjury prosecution if
attorneys had not
proposed one.
There are two possible explanations. Either (1)
attorneys knew in February
2016 that they were going to set a perjury trap for Maxwell, and they discussed that plan with
AUSA
at the time, or (2) there were additional communications between AUSA
and
attorneys (phone calls or even a second meeting) after Maxwell was deposed.
Either way, the government contemplated a perjury charge against Maxwell in 2016, and the
Response's insistence otherwise is not credible.
Defense 3: Maxwell's argument relies on nothing but the Daily News
article.
The government says that Maxwell's argument "is premised solely on her use of selective
snippets from a lone Daily News Article that is premised, in meaningful part, on anonymous
sources and hearsay." Resp. at 89. This claim is stunningly disingenuous, and it fails on its own
terms.
When Maxwell filed her Motion, she did not have access to the government's emails and
AUSA
contemporaneous notes, despite their obvious exculpatory value. See Brady V.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87-88 (1963). The government did not disclose these materials until
Maxwell challenged the government's candor and conduct before Judge McMahon. One
wonders whether the government would have provided them to Maxwell had she not filed this
Motion.
11
EFTA00028944

=== Page 17 ===
The government's claim also fails on its own terms. The article is not meaningfully
anonymous. 10 Among others, the article quotes David Boies, who said:
We were saying to anyone who would listen: We've got clients who were abused.
Some of them were underage. We have the evidence. There's a whole record that's
been developed. We can establish beyond any reasonable doubt there was a massive
sex trafficking ring going on.
The article also quotes Brad Edwards, who describes in his self-published memoir the various
contacts
attorneys had with the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2016.
Finally, as detailed above, AUSA
contemporaneous notes confirm most of the
article's substance. 11 Ex. J.
Defense 4: There was only one meeting.
The government denies there was a second meeting between the U.S. Attorney's Office
and
attorneys. Resp. at 92. This denial, though, is based solely on AUSA
foggy memory and in the absence of any credible investigation. Contrary to the government's
claim, the evidence strongly suggests there was a second meeting or some further contact
between them. At the very least, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing to find the truth.
10 Stephen Rex
Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020),
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013-
jmzhl7zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html.
To the extent the article relies on unnamed sources, there is no indication those sources are
anonymous in the sense that the author is unaware of their identity. In the 2021 call, the government
apparently did not ask AUSA
whether she was one of the unnamed sources. See Ex. K.
11 The government also says the article is hearsay. Resp. at 89. This is an odd claim for the
government to make while asking this Court to credit double hearsay: someone's notes of statements
made by AUSA
during a phone call. The government's hearsay argument does nothing but
support Maxwell's request for an evidentiary hearing.
12
EFTA00028945

=== Page 18 ===
Two of the sources in the Daily News article insisted there was a second meeting in the
summer of 2016. 12
In addition, as described above, AUSA
in 2021 said she recalls contemplating a
perjury prosecution of Maxwell. Ex. K, p 5. But if there were only the one meeting, it makes
little sense for AUSA
to have been thinking about a potential perjury prosecution in
February of 2016, before Maxwell had even been deposed (unless the plan was to set a perjury
trap for Maxwell). It is more likely that AUSA
contemplated a perjury prosecution after
a second meeting with
attorneys, which took place after at least one of Maxwell's
depositions. As reported in the Daily News, "David [Boies] was particularly frustrated by the
failure to pursue a perjury charge. "We have her dead to rights," he said. 14
This Court cannot accept without further inquiry the government's assertion that there
wasn't a second meeting or any further contact between the U.S. Attorney's Office and
attorneys. At a minimum, an evidentiary hearing is required.
Defense 5: AUSA
had no idea what was in Boies Schiller's files.
The government stands by the claim that AUSA
had "either little or no
additional information than [Judge McMahon did] in terms of what materials there are [and] who
was deposed" and, for all the government knew, the deposition transcripts would show "page
after page of people taking the Fifth." See Resp. at 70. The government's Response is not
credible.
12 Supra Note 10.
13 Supra Note 10.
14 Supra Note 10.
13
EFTA00028946

=== Page 19 ===
For one thing, the government admits that
attorneys turned over several
documents in 2016, which were in the government's possession when AUSA
claimed
to Judge McMahon that he did not know what was in Boies Schiller's file. Moreover, by the time
AUSA
told Judge McMahon that, for all he knew, the deposition transcripts would
show "page after page of people taking the Fifth," it was already a matter of public record that
Maxwell had been deposed and that she had not invoked the Fifth Amendment. Ex. Q, p 1.
The government's argument also defies logic. The government was asking Judge
McMahon to authorize a subpoena of Boies Schiller's entire file. At a minimum, the government
had to have asked Boies Schiller about the size of the file and issues related to privilege to
determine if Boies Schiller would contest the subpoena or notify either the civil court or
Maxwell when the subpoena was issued and responsive documents produced. In fact, the
government issued two subpoenas to Boies Schiller: the first for material covered by the
Protective Order, and the second for material outside the Protective Order's reach. Clearly, the
government knew more about Boies Schiller's file than AUSA
let on.
Defense 6: The "subject of your investigation" to whom Judge McMahon
referred was Jeffrey Epstein.
According to the government, when Judge McMahon asked AUSA
"about
contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the
issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation," Mot. Ex. E, p 2, Judge McMahon
was referring only to Epstein. Resp. at 71. This is not a plausible reading of the transcript.
After his first appearance before her, Judge McMahon haled AUSA
back to
court for one reason. "I'll be very up-front with you," she said. Mot. Ex. E, p 2.
14
EFTA00028947

=== Page 20 ===
I want to make sure I'm not in a Chemical Bank[¹⁵] kind of situation, so I would
like to know about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the
Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your
investigation.
Id. (emphasis added).
"Tellingly,"¹ Judge McMahon did not ask AUSA
about the "target" of his
investigation; she asked about its "subject." The "subject of [the] investigation" is much broader
than its "target."
"A 'target' is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial
evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the
prosecutor, is a putative defendant. "A 'subject' of an investigation is a person whose conduct
is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation." The scope of an investigation, in turn,
includes not only potential defendants and potential victims, but also the conduct at issue and the
locations involved.
Were there any doubt about Judge McMahon's meaning, she put that doubt to rest in her
written order authorizing the subpoena. Mot. Ex. G, p 21. The "subject of the investigation," she
explained, was "the matters that were the subject of the
[defamation] Action." Id. And
having asked AUSA
about his office's contacts with Boies Schiller about "the
15 Chemical Bank V. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
16 "Tellingly," claims the government in the Response, "Maxwell omits [the phrase "subject of
your investigation'] of this question from her motion." Resp. at 70 n.34. Not true. On page 13 of
Maxwell's Motion, in arguing that AUSA
mislead Judge McMahon, Maxwell fully and
completely quotes Judge McMahon's question, just as she does above. Mot. at 13 (quoting Ex. E, p 2).
17 United States Department of Justice, JUSTICE MANUAL, JM $ 9-11.151, Grand Jury, Advice of
"Rights" of Grand Jury Witnesses (updated Jan. 2020), available at: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-
11000-grand-jury#9-11.151 (last accessed Mar. 11, 2021).
18 Id.
15
EFTA00028948

=== Page 21 ===
matters that were the subject of the
[defamation] Action," and having been misled by
AUSA
response, Judge McMahon erroneously (though blamelessly) concluded that
[n]othing in this record suggests to me that
or Boies Schiller had anything
to do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the
matters that were the subject of the
Action.
There is no evidence of
"collusion," to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boies Schiller
did not foment the Government's investigation.
Id. (emphasis added).
For her part, AUSA
shared the very concern Judge McMahon later expressed to
AUSA
:
that Boies Schiller was trying to instigate an investigation of Maxwell to
leverage its position in the
Action." Mot. Ex. K, p 3. In the 2021 call, AUSA
recalled that the
pending CVRA civil case and other civil litigation
gave [her] some pause
because she had other occasions where civil litigants have decided to report
something to the USAO because they think it will help them in their civil case.
AUSA
even mentioned this concern to the Chief of the Criminal Division. Id. If AUSA
and the Chief of the Criminal Division recognized what was going on, AUSA
can hardly feign ignorance.¹⁹
If the government means to suggest that when Judge McMahon asked about any prior
contacts concerning "the subject of your investigation," she was somehow confining her inquiry
to the time period surrounding November 2018, see Resp. at 90-91, that too is an implausible
reading of the transcript. If Judge McMahon meant "subject" to be a term of art ("subject" of the
investigation as opposed to a "target" of the investigation), then the government should have
19 Of course, if AUSA
honestly did not understand Chief Judge McMahon's question,
once she issued her opinion there could no longer be any doubt. And at that point, AUSA
would have been duty-bound to correct the misimpression he had created. N.Y. Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule. 3.8, cmt. [6A] ("Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rule 3.3, which requires a
lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures to correct material evidence that the lawyer has offered
when the lawyer comes to know of its falsity.").
16
EFTA00028949

=== Page 22 ===
disclosed the Boies Schiller contacts for the reasons given above. And if Judge McMahon meant
"subject" to have its everyday meaning, then she was asking about something even broader:
Whether the U.S. Attorney's Office had contacts with Boies Schiller about the "subject"-i.e.,
the "conduct"-being investigated.
Nothing about the transcript supports the government's overly narrow, hindsight-based
interpretation of Judge McMahon's question.
***
For these reasons, this Court should reject the government's attempt to rewrite the history
of its investigation and its affirmative misrepresentations to Judge McMahon.
B. Assuming the Government's Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the
Government Still Misled the Court.
Even if the government's account were worthy of belief (which it is not), that doesn't get
the government off the hook.
The government would like this Court to believe that: (1) the February 29 meeting
concerned a prosecution of Epstein only and not Maxwell; and (2) when Judge McMahon asked
AUSA
about his office's prior contacts with Boies Schiller concerning "the subject of
its investigation," Judge McMahon was referring to Epstein only and not Maxwell.
Even if those two assertions were true, however, then AUSA
still misled
Judge McMahon and misrepresented the origins of the investigation. Under the government's
version of events, "the pitch was to investigate Epstein, not Maxwell." Resp. at 89 n.39. If that's
true, AUSA
unquestionably should have told Judge McMahon about the February
2016 meeting when she asked him "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office
and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your
investigation"-i.e., Epstein. AUSA
did not tell Chief Judge McMahon about the
17
EFTA00028950

=== Page 23 ===
contacts with Boies Schiller on the topic of Epstein any more than he shared the contacts on the
topic of Maxwell-he simply denied any contacts had occurred, something that is demonstrably
false.
Whether Boies Schiller "pitched" a prosecution of Epstein only or of Epstein and
Maxwell as a duo, AUSA
misled Judge McMahon by denying there was any "pitch"
whatsoever.
III. The Materiality of the Government's False Statements.
The government halfheartedly suggests that "there is no reason to believe that a
description of the February 2016 meeting would have been material to Chief Judge McMahon's
analysis of whether she was facing a 'Chemical Bank kind of situation. Resp. at 91. Hardly. In
fact, there is every reason to believe Judge McMahon would have refused to authorize the
subpoena if AUSA
had not so misled her.
How do we know? Because Judge McMahon said so-at least twice.
Judge McMahon first made this clear by haling AUSA
back in for one and
only one reason: To ask him about the contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before
November 2018. So crucial was this question to Judge McMahon's decision that the transcript of
the AUSA
second appearance before her is just three pages long. Mot. Ex. E.
Judge McMahon made her thinking even clearer in her written order authorizing the
subpoena. Mot. Ex. G. On page 12 of her opinion, when attempting to reconcile Chemical Bank
with Martindell,²⁰ Judge McMahon found that "nothing in the record suggests that the
Government's investigation in this case was occasioned by Boies Schiller-a point to which I
will return later in this opinion." Mot. Ex. G, p 12.
20 Martindell V. Int 'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979).
18
EFTA00028951

=== Page 24 ===
Judge McMahon "returned" to that point when discussing whether Maxwell could have
reasonably relied on the Protective Order:
[T]he only thing on which Maxwell or anyone else might reasonably have relied is
that
or her lawyers would not do what the defendant in Chemical Bank
did-that is, forward discovery materials in their possession to prosecutors for the
purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation.
Nothing in this record suggests to me that
or Boies Schiller had anything to
do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters
that were the subject of the
Action. On the contrary-the Government has
advised the Court that it contacted Boies Schiller as part of its search for parties
who might have been victims in its investigation; and that Boies Schiller told the
Government that it could not consensually produce at least some documents in its
files because of the existence of the Protective Order. There is no evidence of
"collusion," to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boies Schiller
did not foment the Government's investigation. Moreover, the Assistant United
States Attorney has represented to this Court that he has no idea what is in Boies
Schiller's files, and that for all he knows every witness who was deposed stood on
his/her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions.
Id. at 21.
Contrary to Judge McMahon's understanding, Boies Schiller contacted the government
(not the other way around); there was ample evidence of "collusion"; it was "quite clear that
Boies Schiller did
foment the Government's investigation"; and AUSA
knew
much more about what was in Boies Schiller's files than he let on.
The Chemical Bank situation Judge McMahon was worried about- when civil litigant
attempts to foment a criminal investigation of her opponent-is exactly what occurred.
Judge McMahon cannot be faulted for not knowing all the facts. AUSA
, on
the other hand, had a "complete handle on the landscape," and he withheld the truth from Judge
McMahon. Had AUSA
not misled her, it is clear Judge McMahon would not have
authorized the subpoena. 21
21 It's notable that even without the benefit of truth from AUSA
, Judge McMahon
wrongly concluded that Maxwell could not have reasonably relied on the Protective Order. In fact, the
19
EFTA00028952

=== Page 25 ===
IV. The Remedy for the Government's Misconduct.
A. Pursuant to its Inherent Power, this Court Should Suppress the Evidence
Obtained from Boies Schiller and Dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are
the Fruits of that Evidence.
This Court has inherent authority to regulate the administration of criminal justice among
the parties. McNabb V. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 340 (1943). "Judges have an obligation to
exercise supervision over the administration of criminal justice in federal courts, a responsibility
that 'implies the duty of establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and
evidence." United States V. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting McNabb, 318
U.S. at 340). As the Supreme Court held in United States V. Payner, "Federal courts may use
their supervisory power in some circumstances to exclude evidence taken from the defendant by
'willful disobedience of law." 447 U.S. 727, 735 (1980) (quoting McNabb, 318 U.S. at 345)
(citing Elkins V. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223 (1960); Rea V. United States, 350 U.S. 214,
216-17 (1956); Hampton V. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 495 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring in
judgment)). A court should invoke its supervisory power of suppression when "there has been a
fraud upon the court in addition to a violation of the defendant's rights." United States V.
Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207, 1216 (7th Cir. 1980).
In United States V. Cortina, a magistrate issued a search warrant based upon an affidavit
subscribed by FBI Agent Linda Stewart, which itself was based on the reports and investigation
of FBI Agent William
Id. at 1208. Unbeknownst to Agent Stewart, Agent
Second Circuit in
V. Maxwell held a few months after Judge McMahon's ruling that Maxwell had
reasonably relied on the Protective Order's guarantee of confidentiality in substantial part, and it therefore
redacted sua sponte from the summary judgment material those "deposition responses concerning
intimate matters where the questions were likely only permitted-and the responses only compelled-
because of a strong expectation of continued confidentiality. 929 F.3d 4, 48, n.22 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2). So, too, has Judge Preska redacted substantial material from the documents she has
released on remand from the Second Circuit, again reflecting that Maxwell reasonably relied on the
Protective Order.
20
EFTA00028953

=== Page 26 ===
reports were replete with misrepresentations and outright lies about the conversations he had
with, and information provided by, a confidential informant. Id. at 1212-13. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the district court's order suppressing the evidence obtained from the search
conducted under the warrant. Id. at 1213. "This search," said the Court, "never should have taken
place." Id.
The Court offered two bases for its decision. It first invoked the Franks analysis to affirm
the district court's conclusion that Agent
intentionally or recklessly misrepresented
material information in Agent
affidavit. Id. But the Court went further, concluding that
suppression was independently required as a matter of inherent authority. Id. at 1214-17.
Because Agent
lied in the affidavit (in addition to lying at the Franks hearing), "[t]he call
for the court's supervisory power under the[] circumstances is at its strongest and most
defensible." Id. at 1214.
The Court recognized that the inherent authority doctrine is not a free pass for courts to
suppress evidence or "merely [to] disagree with the method[s] of law enforcement." Id. "[T]he
federal supervisory power does not give 'the federal judiciary a 'chancellor's foot' veto over law
enforcement practices of which it (does) not approve." Id. (quoting United States V. Russell, 411
U.S. 423, 435 (1973)). Even so, inherent authority is properly invoked to "prevent[] the court
from condoning a fraud perpetrated upon it." Id. Suppression serves both to deter unlawful
governmental conduct and to protect judicial integrity. Id. (weighing "the deterrent values of
preventing the incrimination of those whose rights the police have violated and the need to
protect the integrity of the federal courts against the cost to society of excluding 'probative but
tainted evidence").
21
EFTA00028954

=== Page 27 ===
Maxwell had a due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the
government's request to modify the Protective Order and issue a subpoena to Boies Schiller.
Mot. Ex. A, 1 14 (permitting modification of the Protective Order only "for good cause shown
following notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard"); Mot. Ex. H (Judge Netburn
denying the government's ex parte request to modify the Jane Doe 43 Protective Order in part
because the government was attempting to deprive Maxwell of notice and an opportunity to be
heard); Martindell, 594 F.2d at 294; see U.S. CONST. amend. V. Maxwell also had a privacy
interest in the materials subject to the subpoena, including most especially her deposition
transcripts. Mot. Ex. A (defining "confidential" material as that which "implicates common law
and statutory privacy interests of
Ghislaine Maxwell"); see U.S. CONST. amend. IV. The
government violated these rights when it secured an ex parte modification of the Protective
Order based on materially false statements to Judge McMahon. In resisting any sanction for its
misconduct, and in denying that Maxwell should even be afforded a hearing, the government
asks this Court to "condon[e] a fraud perpetrated upon it." See Cortina, 630 F.2d at 1214.
To be sure, AUSA
misled Judge McMahon in answering the singular question
she posed, and he did so with full knowledge of the facts. AUSA
misrepresentations
were material to Judge McMahon's decision, because she would not have modified the
Protective Order if AUSA
had been candid about Boies Schiller's role in initiating
the investigation. As Judge McMahon put it, "the only thing on which Maxwell
might
reasonably have relied is that
or her lawyers" would not approach prosecutors and
"foment the Government's investigation." Mot. Ex. G, p 21. I. That is, in fact, exactly what
happened. As in Cortina, the modification of the Protective Order "never should have taken
place." Id. When, as here, a prosecutor-from the public corruption unit no less-misrepresents
22
EFTA00028955

=== Page 28 ===
material information to a federal judge in an ex parte proceeding, "[t]he call for the court's
supervisory power is at its strongest and most defensible." Cortina, 630 F.2d at 1214.
Maxwell need not satisfy the standard of Franks V. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) in
order to obtain relief. But even if Franks applies, Maxwell has easily met her burden. To obtain a
Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States V.
Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56), that (i) there were
"inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were
necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause or necessity finding," and (iii) "the claimed
inaccuracies or omissions [were] the result of the affiant's deliberate falsehood or reckless
disregard for the truth." United States V. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 397 (2d Cir. 2018). Here, there
is no dispute that (i) AUSA
representations to Judge McMahon were false and
misleading, (ii) Judge McMahon would not have modified the Protective Order to authorize the
subpoena if AUSA
had been honest with her, and (3) AUSA
statements
were deliberately false, since he had a "complete handle on the landscape" months before he
appeared in front of and misled Judge McMahon.
Nor need Maxwell prove "outrageous government conduct" to obtain relief. Were that
her burden, however, Maxwell would have easily satisfied it. "The concept of fairness embodied
in the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee is violated by government action that is
fundamentally unfair or shocking to our traditional sense of justice." United States V. Schmidt,
105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997). To prevail on an outrageous government conduct claim, "a
defendant must show that the government's conduct is 'so outrageous that common notions of
fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a
23
EFTA00028956

=== Page 29 ===
conviction." United States V. Bout, 731 F.3d 233, 238 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States V.
Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997)).
Here, it would "shock the conscience" to permit a prosecutor to make false statements to
a federal judge to circumvent another judge's duly-entered order, all in violation of the
defendant's due process, privacy, and Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The only way to
prevent Maxwell from suffering unconstitutional prejudice because of the government's
misconduct is to suppress the evidence the government unlawfully obtained and to dismiss
Counts 5 and 6.
***
AUSA
breached two separate but equally consequential duties: The duty of a
public prosecutor and the duty of candor.
"[T]he responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his
duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict." Young V. United States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987).
Prosecutors are held to a higher standard, and for good reason. "[The prosecutor] is in a peculiar
and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not
escape or innocence suffer." Berger V. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
Moreover, "[i]n light of the prosecutor's public responsibilities, broad authority and
discretion, the prosecutor has a heightened duty of candor to the courts and in fulfilling other
professional obligations." ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Prosecution Function, Standard 3-
1.4 (4th ed. 2017). "While all lawyers owe a duty of honesty and candor to the Court, 'this
obligation lies most heavily upon [public prosecutors] who are not merely partisan advocates, but
public officials charged with administering justice honestly, fairly and impartially." Morales V.
Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601, 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
24
EFTA00028957

=== Page 30 ===
In turn, this already high standard ratchets up even higher when a prosecutor appears
before the court ex parte. "The duty of candor is, if anything, more critical when ex parte
applications are made to a court." In re WinNet R CJSC, 2017 WL 1373918, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. No.
16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017); see N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(d) ("In an ex
parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that
will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse."); see
also id. cmt. [14]. And it "is not a defense to claim that, while factual statements to the Court
were materially misleading, they were not literally false. Attorneys are officers of the Court, and
our system of justice cannot operate efficiently if the Court cannot rely on the candor of counsel
presenting an application for ex parte relief." Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC V. Commonwealth
Mgmt. Assocs., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
AUSA
failed to live up to these standards. In an ex parte proceeding, AUSA
affirmatively misled Judge McMahon, with full knowledge of what issue concerned
Judge McMahon and what information would be material to her decision. When, as here, "there
has been a fraud upon the court," Cortina, 630 F.2d at 1216, "[t]he court has inherent authority
to regulate the administration of criminal justice among the parties before the bar
[by]
exclud[ing] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law," id. at 1214.
United States V. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent
authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own
proceedings ").
25
EFTA00028958

=== Page 31 ===
B. At a Minimum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell
May Inquire into the Circumstances Surrounding the Government's
Misrepresentation to Judge McMahon.
"An evidentiary hearing is normally required to address motions to suppress where a
factual issue is in dispute." United States V. Paredes-Cordova, No. S1 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009
WL 1585776, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009); United States V. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir.
1992) ("[A]n evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress ordinarily is required if the moving
papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to
conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in question."
(quotation omitted))). Here, the government has confessed enough facts to demonstrate that
Maxwell at least is entitled to a hearing.
There is no merit to the government's assertion that Maxwell is not entitled to a hearing
because she has not submitted an affidavit in support of her Motion. An affidavit is not a
prerequisite to a hearing when the government has confessed the existence of facts sufficient to
entitle a defendant to an evidentiary hearing.
Nor is an affidavit required when information at issue is peculiarly within the possession
of the government (e.g., AUSA
and AUSA
) or others who are adverse to
Maxwell (e.g., Boies, Edwards, Skinner, Pottinger). See Cortina, 630 F.2d at 1216 ("The
violation here is particularly insidious because it is difficult to uncover misrepresentations in an
[ex parte submission]. The information needed to prove such assertions false is peculiarly within
the hands of the government."). Since Maxwell was not at the February 29 meeting or copied on
any of the emails or communications that followed, the Response does not explain how Maxwell
could possibly submit an affidavit attesting to the government's misrepresentations based on
personal knowledge.
26
EFTA00028959

=== Page 32 ===
The government of course does not suggest that any of its agents, such as AUSA
,
would be willing to provide an affidavit to Maxwell or otherwise speak with defense
counsel absent compulsion from this Court. Indeed, the government conspicuously did not attach
to its Response any affidavits about its interactions with Boies Schiller.
It's plain, therefore, that this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing and effectuate
Maxwell's constitutional right to compulsory process because that is the only way to get to the
truth.
22
Conclusion
For these reasons, as well as those given in the Motion, this Court should: (1) suppress all
evidence the government obtained from Boies Schiller and any other evidence derived
therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived
therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this
Motion.
Dated: March 15, 2021
22 If this Court concludes an affidavit is required before it holds a hearing, Maxwell requests
leave, as she did in her Motion, to attempt to obtain such an affidavit. But if, as is likely, none of the
participants-e.g., AUSA
, AUSA
,
Boies, Edwards, Skinner, Pottinger-voluntarily
provides an affidavit, Maxwell invokes her constitutional right to compulsory process and this Court's
authority to compel testimony in support of her defense. U.S. CONST. amend. VI.
27
EFTA00028960

=== Page 33 ===
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
28
EFTA00028961

=== Page 34 ===
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 Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in
Support of Her Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from
the Government's Subpoena to Boies Schiller and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six upon the
following:
U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
s/ Christian R. Everdell
29
EFTA00028962


c1: EFTA00029598
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029598.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: Fwd: Availability tomorrow?
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2021 01:40:44 +0000
Hey Guys,
Per the below FBI reached out to us about a threat being made by a woman who was denied status as an Epstein
victim to the woman who oversees the victim compensation fund.
We're going to handle in the normal fashion (threat assessment, locate the target, do an approach and warn her
off) but wanted to flag for you given the Epstein connection.
Let me know if you want to discuss.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Subject: Re: Availability tomorrow?
Sorry for the delay.
is our victim and oversees the applications for the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund.
is
The individual who has been making threats is Allison Huxtable.
Thank
Special Agent
FBI I New York Office
Violent Crimes Task Force
EFTA00029598

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021, 19:39
To:
)
Cc:
)
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Re: Availability tomorrow?
Just wanted to make sure you were sending the info we discussed.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 2, 2021, at 9:18 PM, Mermelstein,
(USANYS)
wrote:
Sure, I'm generally around tomorrow.
From:
<JPRETSIS@fbi.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 9:01 PM
To:
Subject: Availability tomorrow?
Hi
Hope all is well. Do you have any availability tomorrow for a quick phone call? We want to make you aware of a case
we opened today and an interview that will most likely happen tomorrow.
It's a threat/stalking case involving a denied claim from the Epstein Compensation Fund. We don't need anything
right now just want to put it on your radar and get your opinion.
Thank you,
Special Agent
FBI I New York Office
Violent Crimes Task Force
EFTA00029599


c1: EFTA00028280
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028280.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: 'Chiefs',
Bee:
Subject: SDNY NEWS CLIPS, DECEMBER 29, 2020
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 17:35:32 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
SDNY PRESS CLIPPINGS
DISCOUNT
JUSTITIA
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
NYDN: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-epstein-mcc-suicide-20201228-fk2h7hzynzburdqwb44jydlinq-story.html
NY POST: https://nypost.com/2020/12/28/judge-rejects-ghislaine-maxwels-28-5m-bail-package/
MATTERS OF INTEREST
THE HILL: https:/thehill.com/policy/finance/531890-trump-names-roisman-acting-sec-chairman
FOX NEWS: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/congresswoman-special-counsel-hunter-biden
YAHOO! NEWS: Rudy Giuliani draws scrutiny from investigators
NYDN: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-parcare-vacine-doses-new-york-20201229-foc5y4ksuvf53jpp7w5dwam42m-story.html
THE HILL: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/531936-top-federal-prosecutor-resigns-after-september-pennsylvania-alleged
AP: https://apnews.com/article/business-new-york-patrick-ho-united-nations-hong-kong-b20268e8bbddc450c18adce79b2cb344
BREITBART: https://www.bretbart.com/tech/2020/12/29/lawsuit-apple-punished-employee-for-approving-app-critical-of-communist-china/
NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/28/us/pardons-trump.html
BOSTON GLOBE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/12/29/opinion/what-trumps-pardons-say-about-criminal-justice/
EFTA00028280


c1: EFTA00027827
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027827.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Final Voucher 11062816(1) has received final approval
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:26:50 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Final voucher 11062816(1) has received final approval.
Trip ID: 11062816
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name:
Minor Customer name: OBD-USA-USANYS-NEW YORK SOUTHERN (UNYS) (JO2104)
Purpose: R20NYS13401 - Epstein Investigation - Witness interview
Destination: Pensacola, FL, United States
Dates: 2020-02-19 - 2020-02-20
Current status: Voucher Awaiting Payment
Voucher total expenses: 1040.52
Estimated trip cost: 1368.26
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
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# V0008
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.
EFTA00027827


c1: EFTA00028146
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028146.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Epstein
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 15:31:46 +0000
Importance: Normal
Yeah that's perfect, I'm still on my way back from the airport now. And
we'll get you fully briefed up and
we'll have a full team proposal in terms of going forward then when we meet with the chiefs.
I had a Red Bull so my head is back in the game )
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2019, at 10:14,
wrote:
Ok sounds good.
From:
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 10:13 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Epstein
Really sorry-I'm in meetings all day, and so is
But we wanted to meet as a team before meeting with the chiefs
anyway, so why don't we do this: We can meet internally as a team at 4:30, and then
and I will loop in the chiefs at
5?
From:
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 10:11 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Epstein
Oy, ok. I am sorry you are so tired! I have to leave at 5 to do pick up. Counting the days until
gets back. Any
chance we can do this at 4:30?
From:
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 9:10 AM
To:
Subject: Fwd: Epstein
I was hoping we'd have time to catch up internally before meeting with chiefs but looks like that won't be
successful. You both available for a quick mtg later this morning and then we can debrief them? I think
has trial witness prep but maybe we can grab even ten mins. Ugh I'm so exhausted.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
EFTA00028146

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Date: January 18, 2019 at 09:05:22 EST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Epstein
I'm traveling back today, could we set a time for Monday? Once I get in later I'm slammed with stuff that
has come up the past few days in other cases.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2019, at 08:51,
(USANYS)
wrote:
You guys back? Can we circle up this morning? Definitely want to hear more about the trip.
and I have
something at 11:30 but I at least am free before/after.
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00028147


c1: EFTA00027742
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027742.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
,
,
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
"
"
)"
Subject: FBI / SDNY Epstein update mtg
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 23:06:59 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00027742


c1: EFTA00028197
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028197.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
To: "Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)"
Subject: Epstein/ investigation by court
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 20:44:56 +0000
Attachments: We_submitted_application_for_nolle_based_on_death.docx
EFTA00028197


c1: EFTA00029070
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029070.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
)"
Cc:
"
)"
"
(USANYS)"
Bcc:
Subject: RE:
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 21:18:08 +0000
Embedded: RE:
Sender:
Subject: RE:
Message-Id:
To:
To:
Cc:
Cc:
EFTA00029070


c1: EFTA00028984
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028984.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
)"
Subject: Epstein
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:39:14 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 6-2.pdf; 6-1.pdf; 6.pdf
I just pulled it
EFTA00028984


c1: EFTA00027978
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027978.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(OIG)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: Question from HQ
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 23:17:54 +0000
and
My HQ has the following question on the underlying case, can you please forward this to the prosecutors on the
underlying case? Thank you.
In addition to BOP policies, did SDNY have requirements to memorialize Epstein's phone calls related to the
underlying case? If so, were they followed?
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
New York Field Office
EFTA00027978


c1: EFTA00029238
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029238.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: 040721 -- SDNY -- US V Maxwell -- Maxwell letter -- request from Reuters
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 14:32:50 +0000
Thanks.
From:
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 9:21 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Fwd: 040721 -- SDNY -- US V Maxwell -- Maxwell letter -- request from Reuters
Just FYA - we'll probably get similar inquiries today on the HIPAA issue.
We declined to comment.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Stempel, Jonathan E. (Reuters)"
Date: April 8, 2021 at 9:14:16 AM EDT
To:
Subject: 040721 -- SDNY -- US V Maxwell -- Maxwell letter -- request from Reuters
Hi from New York. Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers have now responded in considerable color to the
government's letter regarding the conditions at MDC. As you probably know, the DOJ's discussion about
conditions in Maxwell's cell attracted much press attention.
Leaving aside the question of whose assessment is more accurate, the defense is raising the question of whether
the DOJ should be disclosing such information because of the potential it might contribute to poisoning the jury
pool. (This could be a ground for appeal if Maxwell were convicted.)
We would like the government's response to this letter, including its mindfulness about how its disclosures
might affect Maxwell's right to a fair trial, and whether it would consent to future redactions of the type
described in the final paragraph.
Thanks in advance.
--Jon
Jonathan Stempel
Correspondent, Reuters America LLC
Thomson Reuters
EFTA00029238

=== Page 2 ===
This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or
confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and
any attachments. Certain required legal entity disclosures can be accessed on our website:
https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/resources/disclosures.html
<040721 -- SDNY -- US V Maxwell -- Maxwell letter.pdf>
EFTA00029239


c1: EFTA00028478
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028478.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Epstein investigation -- discovery
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:58:09 +0000
Great, thanks!
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 7:52 PM
To:
Cc:
;
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Epstein investigation -- discovery
Hit send too soon. Most of my VOC stuff is on the 4th floor. Most of my MLOC stuff is electronic so there shouldn't be
much to look through. When you are there happy to join on FT to help out.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2020, at 6:24 PM,
)
wrote:
Thanks very much. I should be in the office later this week and will swing by your office to look around and confirm
there are no hard copy files.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 10:09 AM
To:
)
is
)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein investigation -- discovery
I do not have anything saved locally.
I do not recall having hard files. I am working remotely, however, anyone is welcome to go into my office and look
through my file cabinets to see if there is anything. But I do not recall having any hard files or anything original for that
matter.
From:
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 1:47 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein investigation -- discovery
Thanks very much,
To confirm, do you have any hard copy files or locally saved documents regarding the Epstein case? (I gather from your
email that the answer is no, but want to double check.)
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 7:18 AM
To:
Cc:
(USANYS)
>;
-
>;
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein investigation -- discovery
I moved all of my emails to the share drive (Date Range 11/30/18 - 4/8/20):
EFTA00028478

=== Page 2 ===
I also created a sub folder for emails with attachments. I excluded Westlaw emails and generally only included the last
email in a chain. But again all emails are in the umbrella folder.
There are some early emails with a US Marshal regarding JE's international travel and registration from when I was
digging into any potential violations of the International Megan's Law. Not sure if you guys were on those
correspondence at the beginning so I wanted to highlight that for you.
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Good luck and I hope that you are all well.
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 1:40 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
Subject: Epstein investigation -- discovery
Hi
Hope you and your family are doing well! With apologies for bothering you: we're in discovery in the Maxwell case, and
we wanted to double check with you to see if you have any materials we might need to review. More specifically, can
you check to see whether you have any case materials at all (of any type) that are not on the shared (e.g. in emails, or
saved locally)?
Thanks,
EFTA00028479


c1: EFTA00028287
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028287.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Epstein victim meeting
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:37:04 +0000
This isn't an immediate issue at all, but whenever you next talk to him, would you mind asking him which victims he's
hearing from?? We haven't gotten any feedback from individual victims or counsel (either directly or through the agents)
so I'm just curious who else the victims would be talking to that it would get back to
particularly if any of the info
is substantive in any way. Thanks!
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 18:13
To:
Subject: Fwd: Epstein victim meeting
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: October 17, 2019 at 6:01:25 PM EDT
To:
Subject: Epstein victim meeting
Guys,
Continue to hear positive comments coming from attendees of the meeting in Florida. FYSA, we are currently
expecting 15 victims, 3 support persons, and 8 attorneys at the meeting here on the 23rd.
EFTA00028287


c1: EFTA00029077
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029077.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
MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL
IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO
SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA
TO BOIES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
Mark S. Cohen
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
EFTA00029077

=== Page 2 ===
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ii
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
iv
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2
A.
The Protective Order in
V. Maxwell
2
B.
Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions
4
C.
The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order
6
D. The Government's False Statements To Judge McMahon
6
E.
Judge Netburn Separately Rejects An Identical Gambit By The Government
10
ARGUMENT
11
A.
Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Should Suppress The Evidence Obtained
From Boies Schiller, And Dismiss Counts Five And Six, Which Are The Fruits Of That
Evidence
11
1.
The role of protective orders in civil litigation
11
2.
The government circumvented the protective order
12
3.
The government violated due process.
14
4.
This court possesses the inherent authority to order suppression
15
B.
At A Minimum, This Court Should Order A Hearing At Which Maxwell May Inquire
Into The Circumstances Surrounding The Government's Misrepresentations To Judge
McMahon
16
CONCLUSION
16
Certificate of Service
18
i
EFTA00029078

=== Page 3 ===
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Benkovitch V. Gorilla, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-7806 (WJM), 2017 WL 4005452 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017)
17
Brown V. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019)
3,6
Chambers V. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991)
17
Chemical Bank V. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
passim
Franks V. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)
18
Giglio V. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
16
V. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
6
Klein V. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017)
17
Manhattan Review LLC V. Yun, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
21, 2017)
17
Martindell V. Int 'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979)
12, 13
S.E.C. V. TheStreet. Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001)
12
Stewart V. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020). 12
United States V. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998)
16
United States V. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980)
16
United States V. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018)
16
United States V. Paredes-Cordova, No. S1 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June
8, 2009)
18
United States V. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2013)
18
United States V. Valentine, 820 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1987)
16
Young V. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987)
16
ii
EFTA00029079

=== Page 4 ===
Other Authorities
Norman Mailer, "An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy," 5/11/80 New York Times
2
Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020)
9
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1
12
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. CONST. amend. V
15
iii
EFTA00029080

=== Page 5 ===
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A: Civil Protective Order
EXHIBIT B:
Protective Order Proposal
EXHIBIT C: Sealed Affirmation and Application, USAO Ref. No. 2018R01618, 2/5/2019
EXHIBIT D: Transcript, 3/26/2019
EXHIBIT E: Transcript, 4/9/2019
EXHIBIT F: Sealed Order (19 Misc. 149 (CM)), 4/9/2019
EXHIBIT G: Sealed Memorandum Decision and Order Granting the Government's Application to
Modify the Protective Order (19 Misc. 149 (CM)), 4/9/2019
EXHIBIT H: Sealed Order (19-MC-00179 (SN)), 4/16/2019
EXHIBIT I: Sealed Letter to Judge Netburn, 4/9/2019
iv
EFTA00029081

=== Page 6 ===
Ghislaine Maxwell moves to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand
jury subpoena it issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which
are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Counts Five and Six allege that Maxwell committed perjury during two civil depositions
conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of
the firm's clients.
V. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective
Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential
discovery material (including the two Maxwell depositions) with anyone else, including with the
government and law enforcement. Faced with that Protective Order, the government issued a
grand jury subpoena for Boies Schiller's file and instituted an ex parte proceeding before Chief
Judge McMahon to modify the Protective Order. By proceeding ex parte, the government
ensured that no one before the court would be able to contest the accuracy of its representations
in support of its application.
The government then took full advantage. Judge McMahon, citing this Court's decision
in Chemical Bank V. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), asked the
government, point blank, whether Southern District prosecutors had previously met with the
Boies Schiller firm or otherwise "collu[ded]" with that firm in arranging the discovery request.
The government lawyer assured Judge McMahon that the prosecutors had no idea what was in
Boies Schiller's file. Indeed, he insisted, there had been no contact whatsoever between Boies
Schiller and United States Attorney's Office before the government commenced its investigation.
Nor, said the prosecutor, did Boies Schiller have any role instigating the Maxwell inquiry.
1
EFTA00029082

=== Page 7 ===
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy's philippic about Lillian Hellman, every word of the
government's representation was untrue, "including 'and' and 'the. The government knew
what was in the Boies Schiller file; the law firm had provided that information well before the
investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with the firm. And Boies
Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution.
The record is surpassingly clear: But for the government's misrepresentation, witting or
not, Judge McMahon never would have permitted the circumvention of the civil Protective
Order, on which Maxwell relied in agreeing to sit for her depositions. This Court therefore has
both the authority and the duty to suppress the fruits of that misrepresentation, including the
deposition transcripts and the two perjury counts based on those transcripts. If the Court is
disinclined to exercise that inherent authority on the present record, Maxwell should be granted a
hearing to examine the circumstances that resulted in the government's misrepresentations to
Judge McMahon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Protective Order in
v. Maxwell
Counts Five and Six of the superseding indictment allege that Maxwell committed
perjury during two civil depositions taken in
V. Maxwell, a civil defamation case
filed in 2015.
claimed that Maxwell defamed her when Maxwell's attorney-hired
press agent denied as "untrue" and "obvious lies"
numerous allegations, over the span
of four years, that Maxwell had participated in a scheme to cause
to be "sexually abused
and trafficked" by Jeffrey Epstein.
1 See Norman Mailer, "An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy," 5/11/80 New York
Times.
2
EFTA00029083

=== Page 8 ===
a public figure required to prove actual malice, had an uphill battle-even she
was constrained to acknowledge that many of her public statements were false. Using a time-
honored if unfortunate litigation tactic, her lawyers at Boies Schiller therefore sought to turn the
lawsuit into a proxy prosecution of Epstein. Not surprisingly, discovery in the case was bitter,
hard-fought, and wide-ranging. It spanned more than a year and included large document
productions, many responses to interrogatories, and thirty-some depositions, including
depositions of
and Maxwell as well as several third parties. See Brown V. Maxwell, 929
F.3d 41, 46, 51 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining that discovery was "hard-fought" and "extensive" and
noting that the court file, which includes only some of the documents created during discovery,
totals in the "thousands of pages").
sought and obtained a wide variety of private and confidential information about
Maxwell and others, including information about financial and sexual matters. Brown, 929 F.3d
at 48 n.22. Given the intimate and highly confidential nature of the discovery exchanged between
the parties, the district court entered a stipulated Protective Order. See Ex. A. The Protective
Order included a mechanism for one party to challenge another party's confidentiality
designation (such a challenge never occurred) and provided that it did not apply to any
information or material disclosed at trial. (Because the case settled before trial, that sole
exception to the Protective Order was never triggered.)
Notably, Boies Schiller sought to add a "law enforcement" exception to the Protective
Order, doubtless because the firm was eager to enlist the government in its campaign against
Maxwell. In particular, Boies Schiller proposed to include a provision stating that
"CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the
preparation and trial of this case and any related matter, including but not limited to,
investigations by law enforcement." Ex. B 1(a)(4) (emphasis supplied). Maxwell flatly rejected
3
EFTA00029084

=== Page 9 ===
this proposal, and it was never included in the Protective Order. Ex. A.² To the contrary, the
order strictly limited the parties' disposition of Confidential Material, including at the conclusion
of the case. In particular, paragraph 12 of the order provided that:
[a]t the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each
document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL
shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties
may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the parties agree to
destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties
with an affidavit confirming destruction.
Ex. A I 12.
B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions
Relying on the confidentiality protections of the Protective Order, Maxwell declined to
invoke her privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and agreed to testify at her April
2016 deposition. In that deposition,
attorneys asked Maxwell whether "Jeffrey Epstein
[had] a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know." Maxwell replied, "I
don't know what you're talking about." And when asked to "[1]ist all the people under the age of
18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties," Maxwell responded, "I'm not aware of
anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously
who was 17 at this point." Count
Five of the superseding indictment alleges those two answers were false.
Following the deposition,
moved to compel Maxwell to answer additional
intimate and personal questions that she had previously declined to answer. In support of the
motion, Boies Schiller assured the district court that "[s]uch questions are entirely appropriate in
the discovery phase of this case, particularly where any answers will be maintained as
confidential under the Protective Order in this case."
2 This proposal was rejected because of justifiable concerns about the misuse and abuse of this
information by plaintiff and her lawyers including the selection and misleading leaking of confidential
material to the media, other false claimants, and the government.
4
EFTA00029085

=== Page 10 ===
The district court granted the motion. In requiring Maxwell to answer highly intrusive
questions "relating to [her] own sexual activity" and "her knowledge of the sexual activity of
others," the court held that Maxwell's "privacy concerns are alleviated by the protective order in
this case."
Secure in the belief that the Protective Order would be honored, Maxwell appeared at a
second deposition, in July 2016, and answered hundreds of pages worth of questions about her
"own sexual activity" and "her knowledge of the sexual activities of others." From the very first
question, Maxwell discussed the intimate details of her sexual activity with Epstein, with other
adult men, with other adult women, the use of sex toys, participation in "threesomes," and a full
gamut of other sordid sexual topics. She was asked where she had sex, when she had sex, with
whom she had sex, what types of sexual predilections Epstein had, whether others watched her
having sex, whether she watched other people having sex, and whether she slept with clothes on.
She was asked whether Epstein had sex with any number of women, and the names of women he
might have had sex with. Maxwell was also grilled extensively about massages: when, where,
what she was wearing, who gave them.
Count Six of the superseding indictment alleges that Maxwell provided false testimony
when she testified during her July 2016 deposition that: (1) she could not recall whether sex toys
or devices were used in sexual activities at Epstein's Palm Beach house; (2) she did not know
whether Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities; (3) she wasn't aware that
Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than herself when she was with him; and
(4) she never gave anyone, including Accuser-23, a massage.
3 The indictment refers to the accusers as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3.
We will refer to them as Accuser-1, Accuser-2, and Accuser-3.
5
EFTA00029086

=== Page 11 ===
C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The
Protective Order
In 2017, the parties settled the defamation claim, and the case was dismissed.
V.
Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), vacated and remanded sub nom. Brown,
929 F.3d 41. As the district court found, "a significant, if not determinative, factor" in reaching a
settlement was its confidentiality. Id. at 446.
After the case was settled and concluded, Maxwell repeatedly invoked Paragraph 12 of
the Protective Order and demanded that
either return or destroy all confidential
information, including her deposition transcripts. Boies Schiller refused. Instead, and
unbeknownst to Maxwell, Boies Schiller produced some 90,000 pages of discovery material to
the government, including both of Maxwell's deposition transcripts.
D. The Government's False Statements To Judge McMahon
Only in August 2020, after she was indicted in this case, did Maxwell finally learn that
the government had obtained the Boies Schiller file by grand jury subpoena. Maxwell also
learned that, to overcome the strictures of the Protective Order, the government had instituted an
ex parte proceeding before Judge McMahon, Case No. 19-Misc.-149 (CM) (S.D.N.Y). Ex. C.
Needless to say, neither Maxwell nor her attorneys were given the opportunity to oppose that
application or to contest the government's representations in support of the application. This was
all in direct violation of Paragraph 14 of the Protective Order, which provides that the order may
be modified by the court only "for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an
opportunity to be heard." Ex. A I 14 (emphasis added).
In its ex parte application, the prosecutors professed that they had sought out Boies
Schiller's file only because "publicly available information regarding the
V. Maxwell]
6
EFTA00029087

=== Page 12 ===
Litigation, including the complaint and other docketed filings
appear[ed] to make reference
to certain subjects relating to the Investigation." That "publicly available information," the
government claimed, indicated that the Boies Schiller file might "contain information relevant to
the ongoing Investigation" of Jeffrey Epstein. Ex. C, I 4. Nowhere did the government
acknowledge that Boies Schiller had in fact approached the prosecutors multiple times well
before the grand jury subpoena issued.
In March 2019, in the first appearance before Judge McMahon, the Government
continued this refrain, professing ignorance about what was in Boies Schiller's file or who was
deposed in the case. The prosecutor defended the subpoena's breadth-which sought all "copies
of discovery and related materials" in
V. Maxwell-on the ground that the government
simply had too little knowledge of what was in the law firm's files to craft a more narrowly
tailored subpoena:
Here, we are essentially unable to significantly narrow the request for information
in part for exactly the reasons that you describe. We have either little or no
additional information than the Court does in terms of what materials there are, who
was deposed, and that is in marked contrast to some of the other cases.
Ex. D, P 17. For all the government knew, according to the Assistant U.S. Attorney, what he was
seeking was "page after page of people taking the Fifth." Ex. D, p 19.
The government appeared a second time before Judge McMahon in April 2019. Ex. E.
Judge McMahon held that conference for one reason: to learn "about contacts between the
United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller law firm prior to the issuance of the
subpoena." Ex. E, p 2. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Judge McMahon that the government's
investigation began on either November 30 or December 3, 2018, omitting mention of any
contacts between Boies Schiller and the government prior to that time:
In the initial days and weeks of the investigation, we endeavored to identify
information about the subject of the investigation, including, among other things,
7
EFTA00029088

=== Page 13 ===
possible victims who we should speak to. In the process of doing so, we identified
certain counsel that were identified as representing victims or witnesses either in
public filings or in media reports. Boies Schiller was among those plaintiff
attorneys. So following the opening of the investigation, we were in touch with
Boies Schiller, among other plaintiff and witness counsel, in connection with their
representation of witnesses or victims.
With respect to Boies Schiller in particular, we quickly came to learn during
the investigation that they had at the time either active or recently completed civil
litigation and so asked them, as is our standard practice, told them, I should say,
that we expected to make document requests. They generally advised us that they
believed there was a protective order that would govern at least some of the
materials, and that is why we ultimately made the application to the Court.
Ex. E, 99 pp 2-3.
Those representations were false. At the time the government claims it began the
investigation (late November or early December 2018), its knowledge of the civil case was not
based exclusively on public filings. It knew that Boies Schiller possessed relevant information
because the firm had come to the government asking it to open an investigation. In particular, on
February 29, 2016, AUSA
met with attorneys from Boies Schiller, who "urged
to open an investigation of" Epstein and Maxwell.4 Then, after Maxwell's two
depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016,
asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury." Brown, supra
n.2. Said Mr. Boies:
"We were saying to anyone who would listen: We've got clients who were abused.
Some of them were underage. We have the evidence. There's a whole record that's
been developed. We can establish beyond any reasonable doubt there was a massive
sex trafficking ring going on."
Id.
4 Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020),
https://www.nydailynews.com/nev-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013-
jmzhl7zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html.
8
EFTA00029089

=== Page 14 ===
At that time, however, the government did not act. Boies "was particularly frustrated by
the failure to pursue a perjury charge [against Maxwell]," reported one person, who recalled him
saying, "We have her dead to rights." Id. All of this contradicts The government's
representations to Judge McMahon, who specifically asked if the government had any contact
with Boies Schiller before it issued the subpoena.
Reassured by the government that no contact had occurred, Judge McMahon modified
the Protective Order so that Boies Schiller could comply with the subpoena. Ex. F. Judge
McMahon found that Maxwell could not have reasonably relied on the Protective Order as
prohibiting Boies Schiller from cooperating with the government. In making this finding, Judge
McMahon relied on the Assistant U.S. Attorney's misrepresentations, and she distinguished the
government's subpoena to Boies Schiller from the subpoena at issue in Chemical Bank. Said
Judge McMahon:
[T]he only thing on which Maxwell or anyone else might reasonably have relied is
that
or her lawyers would not do what the defendant in Chemical Bank
did-that is, forward discovery materials in their possession to prosecutors for the
purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation.
Nothing in this record suggests to me that
or Boies Schiller had anything to
do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters
that were the subject of the
Action. On the contrary-the Government has
advised the Court that it contacted Boies Schiller as part of its search for parties
who might have been victims in its investigation; and that Boies Schiller told the
Government that it could not consensually produce at least some documents in its
files because of the existence of the Protective Order. There is no evidence of
"collusion," to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boies Schiller
did not foment the Government's investigation. Moreover, the Assistant United
States Attorney has represented to this Court that he has no idea what is in Boies
Schiller's files, and that for all he knows every witness who was deposed stood on
his/her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions.
Ex. G, p 21.
5 Ms. Maxwell strenuously disagrees with Mr. Boies' comments. We reference them here only to
show their connection to the perjury counts that the government subsequently charged.
9
EFTA00029090

=== Page 15 ===
Contrary to the government's misrepresentations, Boies Schiller did foment the
investigation (or at least it tried to). And the evidence of "collusion" between the government
and Boies Schiller was ample, tracing to at least early 2016 and precisely designed to have
Maxwell charged with perjury.⁶ Had Judge McMahon known the truth, she likely would have
denied the government's application to modify the
V. Maxwell Protective Order, and the
government would have been unable to secure a copy of Boies Schiller's ninety-thousand-page
file, including Maxwell's two deposition transcripts.
E. Judge Netburn Separately Rejects An Identical Gambit By The
Government
Around the same time that Judge McMahon granted the government's ex parte request,
Magistrate Judge Netburn rejected an identical request from the government in a different civil
case, Jane Doe 43 V. Epstein, Case No. 17-cv-616 (JGK) (SN). Judge Netburn recognized the
government's conduct for what it was: an attempt to deprive Maxwell of notice and an
opportunity to be heard. Ex. H. Indeed, Judge Netburn rebuffed the government even after it
alerted her to Judge McMahon's order. Ex. I. As Judge Netburn found, the government's
"abstract concern" about the "secrecy" of its investigation-a concern that exists with any
investigation and is hardly unique to this case-could not overcome the parties' reasonable
reliance on the Protective Order or justify the government's secret, ex parte application. Ex. H, P
6. Judge Netburn also implicitly recognized what Judge McMahon never knew-that Boies
Schiller was all too eager for the government to investigate and prosecute Maxwell:
6 Maxwell has not yet been provided discovery of whether Boies Schiller shared actual sealed
materials or the contents of sealed materials during its meetings with the United States Attorney's Office
in 2016. As noted below, the bare minimum that is required here is an evidentiary hearing to probe the
extent to which Boies Schiller "colluded," in a Chemical Bank sense, with the prosecutor's office.
10
EFTA00029091

=== Page 16 ===
[T]he extraordinary posture of the case requires the Court to police carefully
government intrusions into areas of protections agreed to by civil litigants and so-
ordered by the Court. The Government is attempting to side-step these protections
by serving a subpoena only upon a party who is willing (and perhaps eager) to
comply with the Government's investigation.
Ex. H, P 6.
ARGUMENT
A. Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Should Suppress The
Evidence Obtained From Boies Schiller, And Dismiss Counts Five And
Six, Which Are The Fruits Of That Evidence
1. The role of protective orders in civil litigation.
Protective orders serve a "vital function" in civil litigation. Martindell V. Int'l Tel. & Tel.
Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979). They promote "the 'secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination' of civil disputes, by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence." Id.
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). "If protective orders were easily modified
parties would be less
forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes." S.E.C. V.
TheStreet. Com, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, "witnesses might be
expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective orders if their testimony were to be
made available to the Government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those
orders." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295-96. Parties thus rely on protective orders, and courts strictly
enforce them. See, e.g., Stewart V. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) ("In the Second Circuit, there is a strict standard for modification of
a protective order entered by a district court." (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
This case illustrates just how crucial a protective order is. The Maxwell depositions
sought highly intrusive evidence of the most personal aspects of Maxwell's life. Her sexual
practices. Her sexual preferences. Her sexual partners. In urging the district court to permit these
extraordinary intrusions-in what should have been a simple defamation case-Boies Schiller
11
EFTA00029092

=== Page 17 ===
expressly invoked the assurances of the Protective Order. So did the district court in permitting
these intrusions and ordering Maxwell to sit for a second deposition. Maxwell likewise relied on
the Protective Order in choosing to render such intimate details, rather than assert her Fifth
Amendment privilege as she had every right to do.
And why shouldn't Maxwell have relied on the Protective Order? The central protection
in the Order was that none of Maxwell's answers could be disclosed to the government. Boies
Schiller had expressly sought a law enforcement exception but was rebuffed. Instead, the law
firm was required either to return the confidential material or, at Maxwell's option, to destroy it.
Maxwell had every reason to take that assurance seriously, even if Boies Schiller did not.
2. The government circumvented the protective order.
Faced with a duly entered Protective Order-which quite deliberately omitted any "law
enforcement" exception-the government had lawful options to pursue the confidential
discovery. It could have moved to intervene in the civil case and to amend the Protective Order.
It could have issued a subpoena for the materials and given Maxwell an opportunity to respond.
Martindell, 594 F.2d at 294. It could even have applied for a search warrant, assuming
(counterfactually) that it could show probable cause in support of such a warrant.
The government did none of those things. Instead, it initiated an ex parte proceeding and
secured a secret modification of the Protective Order based on material misrepresentations to the
presiding judge. This was not among the lawful options available to the government.
It cannot fairly be disputed that Judge McMahon's ruling to amend the Protective Order
was based on the government's misrepresentations. Immediately before issuing her decision,
Judge McMahon held a hearing with the sole purpose of asking the prosecutor, point blank,
about the government's contacts with Boies Schiller. Judge McMahon's stated reason for so
inquiring was to ensure that the government and Boies Schiller had not coordinated as the parties
12
EFTA00029093

=== Page 18 ===
had in the Chemical Bank case. In no uncertain terms, Judge McMahon explained why she had
haled the prosecutor back into court:
I'll be very up-front with you. I want to make sure I'm not in a Chemical Bank kind
of situation, so I would like to know about contacts between the United States
Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena
on the subject of your investigation.
Ex. E, P 2.
In Chemical Bank, a protective order precluded parties to a civil case from disclosing
confidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92-93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the
defendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and suggested that it had
evidence of criminal violations relating to the case. Id. at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena,
and the defendant produced to the government various confidential documents without
complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the protective order. Id.
Once this collusion came to light, the district court reprimanded the defendant for its "disregard
of the [protective] order[]" and admonished its behavior as "contrary to the traditions of the Bar
which dictate that court orders be respected." Id.
In addressing the government's application here, Judge McMahon specifically asked
whether Boies Schiller had acted as the defendant did in Chemical Bank. The prosecutor omitted
any mention of his office's previous meetings with the firm, and falsely led the court to believe
that Boies Schiller had not encouraged its investigation. Reassured by the misrepresentations,
Judge McMahon commented:
Nothing in this record suggests to me that
or Boies Schiller had anything to
do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters
that were the subject of the
Action. On the contrary-the Government has
advised the Court that it contacted Boies Schiller as part of its search for parties
who might have been victims in its investigation; and that Boies Schiller told the
Government that it could not consensually produce at least some documents in its
files because of the existence of the Protective Order. There is no evidence of
13
EFTA00029094

=== Page 19 ===
"collusion," to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boies Schiller
did not foment the Government's investigation.
Had Judge McMahon known the truth, she likely would not have granted the government's
application to modify the Protective Order to allow Boies Schiller to comply with the subpoena.
3. The government violated due process.
The government's conduct cannot be squared with elemental due process. U.S. CONST.
amend. V. Pursuant to this guarantee, "[t]he responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from
that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict." Young V. United
States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987). The government engages in misconduct and violates due
process when it materially misrepresents facts before a court. See United States V. Valentine, 820
F.2d 565, 570 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that the government violated due process and reversing
conviction when the government mischaracterized the substance of grand jury testimony).
The prosecutor may well have known that his representations to Judge McMahon were
false (or at best misleading). But the Assistant U.S. Attorney's personal knowledge doesn't
matter. "An individual prosecutor is presumed to have knowledge of all information gathered
in connection with his office's investigation of the case." United States V. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249,
255 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Giglio V. U.S., 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) ("The prosecutor's office is
an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government. A promise made by one attorney
must be attributed, for these purposes, to the Government."). At the barest minimum, a federal
prosecutor has a duty to check the entire file to ensure that his representations to a federal judge,
submitted on behalf of the office he serves and under oath, are true and complete. The Assistant
U.S. Attorney did not discharge that basic function.
14
EFTA00029095

=== Page 20 ===
4. This court possesses the inherent authority to order suppression.
Incident to its inherent power to superintend proceedings, this Court has the authority to
suppress the fruits of the government's misrepresentation. See, e.g., United States V. Cortina, 630
F.3d 1207, 1214 (7th Cir. 1980) ("The court has inherent authority to regulate the administration
of criminal justice among the parties before the bar
[by] exclud[ing] evidence taken from
the defendant by willful disobedience of law." (citation omitted)); United States V. Lambus, 897
F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence
gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings
"); Benkovitch
V. Gorilla, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-7806 (WJM), 2017 WL 4005452, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017)
("District courts have 'inherent authority' to impose a variety of sanctions, including
suppression of evidence
").
It does not matter that the government made its misrepresentations to Judge McMahon
and not directly to this Court. "As long as a party receives an appropriate hearing,
the party
may be sanctioned for abuses of process occurring beyond the courtroom
" Chambers V.
NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32, 57 (1991). "Courts have held that inherent authority sanctions may be
imposed for misconduct in another court where the misconduct is
in some way related to the
case before the sanctioning court." Klein V. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260, at *6
(E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) (citation and alteration omitted); Manhattan Review LLC V. Yun, 16
Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317, *7 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) ("The inherent
power
can punish conduct before a different court if it is intimately related to the relevant
case." (citing Klein, 2017 WL 2834260, at *4)). Here, the government's misrepresentation to
Judge McMahon was not simply "related" to Counts Five and Six; only by the government's
deception was it able to obtain the factual predicate for those counts. Accordingly, the Court may
exercise its inherent authority to suppress that evidence. And it should.
15
EFTA00029096

=== Page 21 ===
B. At A Minimum, This Court Should Order A Hearing At Which Maxwell
May Inquire Into The Circumstances Surrounding The Government's
Misrepresentations To Judge McMahon
If the Court is disinclined to grant relief on the present record, then at a minimum it
should hold an evidentiary hearing to probe the government's misstatements to Judge McMahon
and the extent to which the prosecutor's office had, in fact, coordinated with Boies Schiller prior
to the issuance of the grand jury subpoena. These factual issues go directly to whether the
predicate finding for Judge McMahon's ruling-namely, that no Chemical Bank collusion had
occurred-was mistaken. See, e.g., United States V. Paredes-Cordova, No. S1 03 CR. 987DAB,
2009 WL 1585776, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) ("An evidentiary hearing is normally required
to address motions to suppress where a factual issue is in dispute.").
An evidentiary hearing is warranted for an additional reason as well: If it turns out that
the prosecutor knew (or was reckless in not knowing) that Boies Schiller had previously
approached his office, both before and after the Maxwell depositions, in an effort to stir up a
criminal prosecution and dangled the deposition transcripts as a carrot, then suppression would
be warranted on that basis alone. Cf. Franks V. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); United
States V. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Franks instructs a district court to hold
a hearing to determine whether the alleged misstatements or omissions in the warrant or wiretap
application were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth and, if so, whether
any such misstatements or omissions were material.").
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the government obtained
from Boies Schiller and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July
2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six.
Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion.
16
EFTA00029097

=== Page 22 ===
Dated: January 25, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
Mark S. Cohen
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
New York, NY 10022 Phone:
212-957-7600
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
17
EFTA00029098

=== Page 23 ===
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the
Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support
of Her Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the
Government's Subpoena to Boies Schiller and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six upon the
following:
U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
s/ Christian R. Everdell
18
EFTA00029099


c1: EFTA00029416
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029416.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
SECURITY
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
New York, New York 10007
August 12, 2021
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
MDC-Metropolitan Detention Center
Legal Department
80 29th Street
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:
Assistant United States Attorneys
Enclosure
EFTA00029416


c1: EFTA00027661
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027661.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
USDC SDNY
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 11/11/21
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' proposed redactions in accordance with Dkt. No.
401. The Court concludes that the proposed redactions and requests to seal certain exhibits are
consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch V. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and narrowly tailored to protect the pre-trial privacy
interests of alleged victims, anticipated witnesses, and non-parties. See United States V. Amodeo,
71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995).
The parties are hereby ORDERED to file the proposed redactions and accompanying
exhibits on the public docket on or before November 12, 2021.
so ORDERED.
Dated: November 11, 2021
Alin D.Nitto
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
1
EFTA00027661


c1: EFTA00028713
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00028713.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: Draft 2d Cir Motion Opp
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 02:19:45 +0000
Attachments: Maxwell_2d_Circuit_Renewed_Bail_Application_Opposition_v1.docx
Hi team,
Attached is a draft opposition to Maxwell's renewed motion for release in the Circuit. Please let me know if you have any
edits before I send up to
This is due Thursday, so I'd like to get this to
by early afternoon tomorrow if possible.
Thanks
EFTA00028713


c1: EFTA00029532
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029532.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Pre-Meeting US V Noel/Epstein FOIA
Start Date: 2021-06-28 19:45:00 +0000
End Date: 2021-06-28 20:00:00 +0000
Organizer:
(USANYS)
Location:
Office
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2021-06-27 22:29:27 +0000
Date Modified: 2021-06-27 22:29:27 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2021-06-27 22:18:22 +0000
Attendee:
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
Alarm: Display the following message 15m before start
Reminder
EFTA00029532


c1: EFTA00029244
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029244.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: RE: OPR Epstein Final Report
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:58:56 +0000
Thanks, I think that should work. We will give you a call then.
From:
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 5:55 PM
To:
Subject: RE: OPR Epstein Final Report
Of course. Why don't you call me
(
)
at your convenience around 9:30 am? If another time works better, just
let me know.
From:
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 5:33 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: OPR Epstein Final Report
Hi
I hope this finds you well. Do you have some time to connect early next week on this matter? If there's a good
time Monday morning, in particular, please let us know. Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 12, 2020, at 10:06 AM,
wrote:
Attached please find OPR's final Report in the Jeffrey Epstein matter, and a transmittal letter.
<OPR-#458587-v1-Epstein_Report_transmittal_to_SDNY_letter_signed).PDF>
<OPR-#458557-v1-Epstein_Report_of_Investigation_and_Exhibits_pdf.PDF>
EFTA00029244


c1: EFTA00027576
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027576.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "
To:
"
Cc:
"
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Focus Group Questionnaire
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 15:19:03 +0000
Attachments: GM_jury_exercise_RTC_-_revised.docx; GM_jury_exercise_verdict_form.docx
Confirming with team but my understanding is what we sent back to
(attached) is final.
Original Message
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 11:18 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Focus Group Questionnaire
Hi
Certainly, will do. Are these the final versions, or is it possible that any changes will be made today or tomorrow?
Thanks,
Original Message
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 11:13 AM
To:
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Focus Group Questionnaire
Hi
Not sure if the team relayed this, but are you able to make copies for Saturday, as outlined below?
Original Message
From:
Taylor <paulettetaylor17@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:15 PM
To:
Cc:
i
i
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Focus Group Questionnaire
Hello-
I have made the changes to the Focus Group Questionnaire that you requested.
The Jury Instructions are ready to print. Please bring 40 copies (stapled upper left) with you to the focus group on Saturday.
The Verdict Questions are printed at the end of the questionnaire. The facilitators orally encourage the juries to reach a unanimous
verdict, but ultimately each juror marks their own verdict sheet with their own individual vote. If the verdict is not unanimous, we see
which jurors voted for the defense, and during the debrief after the deliberations on each count we find out why they voted the way they
did.
Will you be bringing binders with copies of documents for jurors to refer to?
EFTA00027576

=== Page 2 ===
> On Sep 21, 2021, at 11:05 AM, Echenberg,
(USANYS)
wrote:
>
> <Tyrrell - Focus Group Questionnaire (LP.AM) - TAM.docx>
EFTA00027577


c1: EFTA00029182
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029182.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:15:29 +0000
Importance: Normal
If you have a minute this morning, can you swing by?
Deputy Chief, Public Corruption Unit
U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York
EFTA00029182


c1: EFTA00027117
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027117.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
,
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
Subject: RE: MCC Visit Thursday
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:29:49 +0000
On Aug 15, 2019 9:11 AM,
wrote:
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:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:06 AM
To:
is
Cc:
)
Subject: FW: MCC Visit Thursday
Can you guys assist with this?
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 8:54 AM
To:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: MCC Visit Thursday
Sorry about the abrupt prior email. I was hoping to get the names so we could ensure we have enough vests for
everyone.
>>>
(USANYS)"
>
8/14/2019 10:56 PM>>>
I just found out that additional law enforcement agents will be joining but I don't know how many and who. I asked. I'm
sorry!
On Aug 14, 2019, at 12:49 PM,
(USANYS)
<
> wrote:
< <!--[if mso 9]--> <!--[endif]-->
Resending, I got an error last time.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:41 PM
EFTA00027117

=== Page 2 ===
To:
is
Cc:
Subject: RE: MCC Visit Thursday
Ed O'Callahan - Principal Deputy Attorney General
Geoffrey Berman - US Attorney
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:26 PM
To:
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
Subject: RE: MCC Visit Thursday
Hi
Not a problem. I will add them to the list. Do you have everyone's titles?
I will advise the Warden of the request that he accompany us on the tour.
Thank you,
Supervisory Staff Attorney
CLC New York
Metropolitan Correctional Center
150 Park Row
New York, New York 10007
?
(USANYS)" <
>
8/14/2019 12:17 PM >>>
Two additional people from DOJ will join the visit:
In addition, Geoff has asked that the new acting warden join the tour. Let me know if you have any questions,
thanks.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:03 PM
To:
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
Subject: RE: MCC Visit Thursday
If it is not too much of an imposition, we ask that all visitors come to our front lobby for screening before admission.
Thanks!
>>>
(USANYS)"
<
>
8/13/2019 3:58 PM >>>
Yes, thank you. Where should we go?
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 3:38 PM
EFTA00027118

=== Page 3 ===
To:
>;
(USANYS)
<
Cc:
Subject: Re: MCC Visit Thursday
Hi
It should not be a problem. Does 10 am work for Mr. Berman and the rest of his staff?
Thank you,
Supervisory Staff Attorney
CLC New York
Metropolitan Correctional Center
150 Park Row
New York, New York 10007
>>>
(USANYS)" <
>
8/13/2019 2:05 PM >>>
The list of visitors from our office is below:
Geoffrey Berman
As discussed, we would like to see the 2nd floor pscyh observation and suicide watch area; the 9th floor SHU, and
Epstein's cell, which we understand to still be cordoned off. As discussed, we would appreciate if only MCC legal
would escort us, and we will not speak to any of the guards present given the ongoing investigations. Please give me
a call with any questions, and let us know what time and where we should go, and if it would be easier for us to
enter via the 3rd floor bridge.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Tel:
EFTA00027119


c1: EFTA00027739
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00027739.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To: Jason Foy
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
i
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
Subject: U.S. V. Noel, No. 19 Cr. 830 - Discovery Production
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:22:57 +0000
Attachments: SDNY_00008123-SDNY_00008123.pdf 2019.12.31_Noel_Discovery_Letter_-
_Production_1.pdf
Counsel:
Please find attached a letter regarding the Government's discovery production in this case. We are sending a hard drive
containing the discovery materials to you. The password on the drive is
Additionally, please find
attached one additional page of discovery, which has been marked attorney's eyes only. Please contact us with any
questions. Thank you.
Regards,
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
New York, New York 10007
Tel:
EFTA00027739


c1: EFTA00029540
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0006/EFTA00029540.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 34
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DATE FILED: 4/16/21
United States of America,
-V-
20-cr-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
OPINION & ORDER
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
In June 2020, a grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Ghislaine Maxwell
with facilitating the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minor victims from around
1994 to 1997. The Government filed a first (S1) superseding indictment shortly thereafter,
which contained only small, ministerial corrections. The S1 superseding indictment included
two counts of enticement or transportation of minors to engage in illegal sex acts in violation of
the Mann Act and two counts of conspiracy to commit those offenses. It also included two
counts of perjury in connection with Maxwell's testimony in a civil deposition. Trial is set to
begin on July 12, 2021.
Maxwell filed twelve pretrial motions seeking to dismiss portions of the S1 superseding
indictment, suppress evidence, and compel discovery. After the parties fully briefed those
motions, a grand jury returned a second (S2) superseding indictment adding a sex trafficking
count and another related conspiracy count.
This Opinion resolves all of Maxwell's currently pending pretrial motions other than
those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and
this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues
EFTA00029540

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 34
related to the newly added sex trafficking charges. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies
Maxwell's motions to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment in whole or in part. It grants her
motion to sever the perjury charges for a separate trial. It denies her motion to further expedite
discovery.
The Court provides a brief summary of its conclusions here and its reasoning on the
pages that follow:
Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts based on a non-prosecution agreement between
Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. The Court
concludes that the agreement does not apply in this District or to the charged offenses.
Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts as untimely. The Court concludes that the
Government brought the charges within the statute of limitations and did not unfairly
delay in bringing them.
Maxwell moves to dismiss the Mann Act counts because they are too vague, or in the
alternative to require the Government to describe the charges in greater detail. The
Court concludes that the charges are specific enough.
Maxwell moves to dismiss the perjury counts because, in her view, her testimony
responded to ambiguous questioning and was not material. The Court concludes that
these issues are best left for the jury.
Maxwell moves to sever the perjury counts from the Mann Act counts so that they can
proceed in a separate trial. The Court concludes that severance is appropriate and will
try the perjury counts separately.
Maxwell moves to strike language from the indictment that she believes is superfluous
and to dismiss conspiracy counts she believes are redundant. The Court concludes that
these motions are premature before trial.
Maxwell moves to compel the Government to immediately disclose certain categories
of evidence. The Court concludes that she is not entitled to do so, but the Court will
order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule.
Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than
Manhattan, returned the S1 superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan
returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion appears moot.
2
EFTA00029541

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 3 of 34
I.
Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not bar this prosecution
In September 2007, under investigation by both federal and state authorities, Jeffrey
Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") with the Office of the United States
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Dkt. No. 142 at 1-2. Epstein agreed in the NPA to
plead guilty in Florida state court to soliciting minors for prostitution and to serve eighteen
months in a county jail. Id. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to charge him
with federal crimes in the Southern District of Florida stemming from its investigation of his
conduct between 2001 and 2007. Id. It also agreed not to bring criminal charges against any of
his "potential co-conspirators." Id.
As a recent report from the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility
observed, the NPA was unusual in many respects, including its breadth, leniency, and secrecy.
OPR Report, Gov. Ex. 3, Dkt. No. 204-3, at X, 80, 175, 179, 260-61. The U.S. Attorney's
promise not to prosecute unidentified co-conspirators marks a stark departure from normal
practice for federal plea agreements. This provision appears to have been added "with little
discussion or consideration by the prosecutors." Id. at 169, 185. The report concluded that the
U.S. Attorney's negotiation and approval of the NPA did not amount to professional misconduct,
but nonetheless reflected "poor judgment." Id. at 169.
Only the NPA's effect, and not its wisdom, is presently before the Court. Maxwell
contends that the NPA bars this prosecution, because she is charged as a co-conspirator of
Jeffrey Epstein and the NPA's co-conspirator provision lacks any geographical or temporal
limitations. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second
Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New
York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment.
3
EFTA00029542

=== Page 4 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34
A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a
promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and due process require the federal
government to fulfill it. See Santobello V. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971); United States V.
Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 558 (2d Cir. 1996). The question here is not whether the U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of Florida had the power to bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of New York. The question is whether the terms of the NPA did so. Applying Second Circuit
precedent and principles of contract interpretation, the Court concludes that they did not.
In United States V. Annabi, the Second Circuit held: "A plea agreement binds only the
office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it
affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." 771 F.2d 670, 672
(2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam). This is something akin to a clear statement rule. Single-district plea
agreements are the norm. Nationwide, unlimited agreements are the rare exception. Applying
Annabi, panels of the Second Circuit have stated that courts cannot infer intent to depart from
this ordinary practice from an agreement's use of phrases like "the government" or "the United
States." United States V. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States V.
Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004). Those are common shorthand. A plea
agreement need not painstakingly spell out "the Office of the United States Attorney for Such-
and-Such District" in every instance to make clear that it applies only in the district where
signed.
Maxwell asks this Court to draw the opposite conclusion. The provision of the NPA
dealing with co-conspirators does not expressly state that it binds U.S. Attorneys in other
districts. It does not expressly state that it applies in other districts. The relevant language, in
4
EFTA00029543

=== Page 5 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 34
its entirety, reads as follows: "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal
charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi,
Salameh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no
restriction on prosecutions in other districts.
Two provisions of the NPA refer specifically to prosecution in the Southern District of
Florida. The first states that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida will defer
"prosecution in this District" if Epstein complies with the agreement. Dkt. No. 142-1 at 2. The
second states that no prosecution "will be instituted in this District, and the charges against
Epstein if any, will be dismissed" after he fulfills the agreement's conditions. Maxwell contends
that the lack of similar language in the co-conspirator provision must mean that it lacks any
geographical limitation. If anything, that language reflects that the NPA's scope was expressly
limited to the Southern District of Florida. It is not plausible-let alone "affirmatively
apparent", Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672,-that the parties intended to drastically expand the
agreement's geographic scope in the single sentence on the prosecution of co-conspirators
without clearly so saying.
Without an affirmative statement in the NPA's text, Maxwell turns to its negotiation
history. Under Second Circuit precedent she may offer evidence that negotiations of the NPA
between the defendant and the prosecutors included a promise to bind other districts. See United
States V. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). She alleges that officials in the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida sought and obtained approval for the NPA
from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and communicated with attorneys in other
districts. Any involvement of attorneys outside the Southern District of Florida appears to have
been minimal. Maxwell has already received access to an unusually large amount of information
5
EFTA00029544

=== Page 6 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 34
about the NPA's negotiation history in the form of the OPR report and yet identifies no evidence
that the Department of Justice made any promises not contained in the NPA. The OPR report
reflects that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General reviewed the NPA, but only after it was
signed when Epstein tried to get out of it. OPR Report at 103. Other documents show that
attorneys in the Southern District of Florida reached out to other districts for investigatory
assistance but not for help negotiating the NPA. Dkt. No. 204-2. Nor would direct approval of
the NPA by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General change the meaning of its terms. No
evidence suggests anyone promised Epstein that the NPA would bar the prosecution of his co-
conspirators in other districts. Absent such a promise, it does not matter who did or did not
approve it.
Second Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption that a plea agreement binds only
the U.S. Attorney's office for the district where it was signed. Maxwell identifies nothing in the
NPA's text or negotiation history to disturb this presumption. The Court thus concludes that the
NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
B. The non-prosecution agreement does not cover the charged offenses
The NPA would provide Maxwell no defense to the charges in the S1 superseding
indictment even against an office bound to follow it. The NPA bars prosecution, following
Epstein's fulfillment of its conditions, only for three specific categories of offenses:
(1) "the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2" of the NPA; namely, "any offenses that
may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around
2001 through in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses;
(2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and
(3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation."
6
EFTA00029545

=== Page 7 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 7 of 34
Dkt. No. 142-1 at 2. The NPA makes clear that the covered charges are those relating to
and deriving from a specific investigation of conduct that occurred between 2001 and 2007.
Maxwell contends that the NPA's co-conspirator provision lacks any limitation on the
offenses covered. The Court disagrees with this improbable interpretation. The phrase
"potential co-conspirator" means nothing without answering the question "co-conspirator in
what?" The most natural reading of the co-conspirator provision is that it covers those who
conspired with Epstein in the offenses covered by the NPA for their involvement in those
offenses. Thus, it would cover any involvement of Maxwell in offenses committed by Epstein
from 2001 to 2007, other offenses that were the subject of the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office
investigation, and any offenses that arose from the related grand jury investigation.
The Court has no trouble concluding that the perjury counts are not covered by the NPA.
Those charges do not relate to conduct in which Maxwell conspired with Epstein and stem from
depositions in 2016, more than eight years after Epstein signed the NPA. Maxwell now
concedes as much, though her motion sought to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment in its
entirety, perjury counts and all.
The Mann Act counts, too, fall comfortably outside the NPA's scope. The S1
superseding indictment charges conduct occurring exclusively between 1994 and 1997, some
four years before the period covered by the Southern District of Florida investigation and the
NPA. The NPA does not purport to immunize Epstein from liability for crimes committed
before the period that was the subject of the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office investigation.
Maxwell's protection is no broader. The Court thus concludes that the NPA does not cover the
offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment.
7
EFTA00029546

=== Page 8 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8 of 34
C. Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing
In the alternative to dismissing the indictment, Maxwell requests that the Court conduct
an evidentiary hearing as to the parties' intent in the NPA. The Court finds no basis to do so.
The cases Maxwell cites where courts held hearings on the scope of a plea agreement
mostly involved oral agreements where there was no written record of the full set of terms
reached by the parties. All of them involved defendants with first-hand knowledge of
negotiations who claimed prosecutors breached an oral promise. "An oral agreement greatly
increases the potential for disputes such as
a failure to agree on the existence, let alone the
terms, of the deal." United States V. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 2002). Thus, an
evidentiary hearing may be necessary to determine the terms of an agreement never committed to
writing. This is no such case. The NPA's terms are clear. Beyond the NPA itself, an extensive
OPR report details its negotiation history. No record evidence suggests that prosecutors
promised Epstein anything beyond what was spelled out in writing. The Court agrees with the
Government that Maxwell's request for a hearing rests on mere conjecture.
For the same reason, the Court will not order the discovery on the NPA. In any case, it
appears that the Government has already produced two of the documents Maxwell seeks in her
motion-the OPR report and notes mentioned in a privilege log. Of course, the Government's
disclosure obligations would require it to disclose to Maxwell any exculpatory evidence or
evidence material to preparing the defense, including any evidence supporting a defense under
the NPA. The Government shall confirm in writing within one week whether it views any
evidence supporting Maxwell's interpretation of the NPA as material it is required to disclose,
and, if so, whether it has disclosed any and all such evidence in its possession.
8
EFTA00029547

=== Page 9 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 9 of 34
II.
The indictment is timely
A. The indictment complies with the statute of limitations
Federal law imposes a five-year limitations period for most non-capital offenses. 18
U.S.C. § 3282(a). Recognizing the difficulty of promptly prosecuting crimes against children,
Congress has provided a longer limitations period for "offense[s] involving the sexual or
physical abuse, or kidnaping" of a minor. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Until 2003, the operative version
of § 3283 allowed prosecution of these offenses until the victim reached the age of twenty-five.
Congress further extended the limitations period in the PROTECT Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-
21, 117 Stat. 650, to allow prosecution any time during the life of the victim.
The parties agree that the Mann Act charges are timely if subject to the PROTECT Act,
but untimely under the general statute of limitations for non-capital offenses or the pre-2003
version of § 3283. Maxwell contends that the charged offenses do not qualify as offenses
involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a minor and are thus governed by the
general statute of limitations. Alternatively, she contends that the pre-2003 version of $ 3283
applies because the charged conduct occurred prior to 2003. The Court concludes that statute of
limitations in the PROTECT Act applies and that the charges are timely.
1. The Mann Act charges are offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors
Maxwell does not dispute that the facts alleged in the S1 superseding indictment involve
the sexual abuse of minors. The indictment charges that Epstein sexually abused each of the
alleged minor victims and that Maxwell allegedly enticed them to travel or transported them for
that purpose. Instead, Maxwell contends that charged offenses do not qualify as offenses
involving the sexual abuse of minors because sexual abuse is not an essential ingredient of each
statutory offense. See Bridges V. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 221 (1953). In Maxwell's view,
9
EFTA00029548

=== Page 10 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 10 of 34
for example, it is possible to transport a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity
and not follow through with the planned sexual abuse, and so sexual abuse is not an essential
ingredient of the offense. Maxwell makes the same argument for the enticement and related
conspiracy charges.
This approach is analogous to the "categorical approach" employed by courts to evaluate
prior convictions for immigration and sentencing purposes. See Taylor V. United States, 495
U.S. 575, 602 (1990). Generally speaking, the "categorical approach" requires that courts "look
only to the statutory definitions-i.e., the elements" of the relevant offense to determine if the
provision applies "and not to the particular facts underlying those convictions." Descamps V.
United States, 570 U.S. 254, 261 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a statute
requires a categorical or case-specific approach is a question of statutory interpretation. To
determine whether Congress used the word "offense" in a statute to refer to an offense in the
abstract or to the facts of each individual case, the Court must examine the statute's "text,
context, and history." United States V. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2327 (2019).
Though it has not authoritatively settled the question, the Second Circuit has strongly
suggested that Maxwell's approach is the wrong one. In Weingarten V. United States, 865 F.3d
48, 58-60 (2d Cir. 2017), the Second Circuit discussed at length how the text, context, and
history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific
approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States V. Schneider, 801
F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015).
The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning in Weingarten. First, "[t]he
Supreme Court's modern categorical approach jurisprudence is confined to the post-conviction
contexts of criminal sentencing and immigration deportation cases." Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 58.
10
EFTA00029549

=== Page 11 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 11 of 34
To the extent that the categorical approach is ever appropriate in other contexts, it is
inappropriate here.
The Court begins with the statute's text. Statutes that call for application of the
categorical approach typically deal with the elements of an offense in a prior criminal conviction.
Id. at 59. "The language of $ 3283, by contrast, reaches beyond the offense and its legal
elements to the conduct 'involv[ed]' in the offense. That linguistic expansion indicates Congress
intended courts to look beyond the bare legal charges in deciding whether $ 3283 applied." Id. at
59-60 (alteration in original) (quoting § 3283). Maxwell cites one case holding otherwise, but
that case involved a venue statute presenting significantly different concerns. See United States
V. Morgan, 393 F.3d 192, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has likewise held that a
statute which uses the language "an offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to
the victim or victims exceeds $10,000" is "consistent with a circumstance-specific approach."
Nijhawan V. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 32, 38 (2009) (emphasis added). Thus, the word "involves"
generally means that courts should look to the circumstances of an offense as committed in each
case. This reading accords with a robust legislative history indicating that Congress intended to
apply $ 3283 to a wide range of crimes against children. See Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 60;
Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196.
The purposes underlying the categorical approach do not apply here either. For statutes
dealing with prior convictions, "[t]he categorical approach serves "practical' purposes: It
promotes judicial and administrative efficiency by precluding the relitigation of past convictions
in minitrials conducted long after the fact." Moncrieffe V. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 200-01 (2013).
In the context of § 3283, there is no prior conviction to assess, and the jury will determine in the
first instance whether "the defendant engaged in the applicable abusive conduct." Weingarten,
11
EFTA00029550

=== Page 12 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 12 of 34
865 F.3d at 60. Maxwell nonetheless contends that using a case-specific approach for § 3283
would be impractical because the Government would need to prove conduct beyond the elements
of the offense. It may be true that this approach requires the Government to prove some
additional facts, but any statute-of-limitations defense presents factual issues (including, at least,
when the alleged conduct took place). This is not a serious practical problem and does not
justify setting aside the statute's language and apparent purpose.
Maxwell relies primarily on Bridges V. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), to urge this
Court to cast Weingarten aside. The Supreme Court in Bridges addressed a statute that extended
the limitations period for defrauding the United States during the Second World War. In that
case, the Supreme Court first concluded that making false statements at an immigration hearing
was not subject to the extended limitations period because it lacked any pecuniary element as
required by the statute. Id. at 221. Then, as an alternative basis for its holding, it explained that
the offense did not require fraud as an "essential ingredient." Id. at 222. It reached that
conclusion in large part because the statute's legislative history made clear that Congress
intended it to apply only to a narrow class of war frauds causing pecuniary loss. Id. at 216.
As the Second Circuit explained in Weingarten, Congress had the opposite intent in the
enacting in the PROTECT Act. Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 59 & n. 10. "In passing recent statutes
related to child sex abuse, including extensions of the § 3283 limitations period, Congress
'evinced a general intention to "cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as
possible." Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States V. Dodge, 597
F.3d 1347, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding-
legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation-does not exist here. Instead, both the
statute's plan meaning and its legislative history suggest it should apply more broadly.
12
EFTA00029551

=== Page 13 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 13 of 34
Based on the statute's text, context, and history, the Court follows Weingarten and
concludes that the appropriate inquiry is whether the charged offenses involved the sexual abuse
of a minor on the facts alleged in this case. There is no question that they did. The Court thus
concludes that § 3283 governs the limitations period for the charges here.
2. The 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations applies to these offenses
Maxwell next contends that because the charged conduct took place before the
PROTECT Act's enactment, that statute did not lengthen the statute of limitations applicable to
her alleged offenses. Here too, the Second Circuit has provided guidance in its decision in
Weingarten. Although the court did not provide a definitive answer there, it explained that the
view Maxwell now takes conflicts with established principles of retroactivity and the decisions
of at least two other circuit courts. Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 58 & n.8; see Cruz V. Maypa, 773
F.3d 138, 145 (4th Cir. 2014); United States V. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir.
2006).
The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal
statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf V. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994).
Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past conduct,
courts must so apply it. Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54. Otherwise, the statute applies to past
conduct unless doing so would create impermissible retroactive effects. Id.
The Court begins with Landgraf's first step. To assess a statute's meaning here, courts
must consider the text of the statute along with other indicia of congressional intent, including
the statute's history and structure. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig. V. Enter.
Mortg. Acceptance Co., 391 F.3d 401, 406 (2d Cir. 2004).
13
EFTA00029552

=== Page 14 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 14 of 34
Section 3283, as amended by the PROTECT Act, broadly states that "[n]o statute of
limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or
physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution
during the life of the child." The statute lacks an express retroactivity clause, but courts have
held that no such clause is necessary, including for this particular statute. See Leo Sure Chief,
438 F.3d at 923. The statute's plain language unambiguously requires that it apply to
prosecutions for offenses committed before the date of enactment. Instead of simply providing a
new limitations period for future conduct, Congress stated that no statute of limitations that
would otherwise preclude prosecution of these offenses will apply. That is, it prevents the
application of any statute of limitations that would otherwise apply to past conduct.
Courts have reached the same conclusion for other statutes employing similar language.
The Eighth Circuit has held that the 1994 amendments to § 3283, which allowed prosecution of
sex crimes against children until the victim reached age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See
United States V. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed
that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123,
illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg.
Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 391 F.3d at 407. That statute eliminated the statute of
limitations for claims on defaulted student loans by stating that "no limitation shall terminate the
period within which suit may be filed." Id. The PROTECT Act's language is quite similar.
The history of § 3283 confirms Congress's intent to apply the extended limitations period
as broadly as the Constitution allows. With each successive amendment to the statute, Congress
further extended the limitations period, recognizing that sex crimes against children "may be
difficult to detect quickly" because children often delay or decline to report sexual abuse.
14
EFTA00029553

=== Page 15 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 15 of 34
Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act
because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf.
Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not
be prosecuted beyond this extended limit-even if DNA matching conclusively identified him as
the perpetrator one day after the victim turned 25." Id.
Maxwell makes no argument based on the statute's text. Instead, she contends that
because the House version of the bill included an express retroactivity provision absent from its
final form, the Court should infer that Congress did not intend the statute to apply to past
conduct. However, the legislative history makes clear that Congress abandoned the retroactivity
provision in the House bill only because it would have produced unconstitutional results. The
Supreme Court has explained that a law that revives a time-barred prosecution violates the Ex
Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner V. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed
retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitutionality" because it "would have revived the
government's authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred." 149 Cong. Rec.
S5137, S5147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy). Congress removed the provision
shortly thereafter for this reason. The removal of the express retroactivity provision shows only
that Congress intended to limit the PROTECT Act to its constitutional applications, including
past conduct-like Maxwell's-on which the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
Both the text and history of the PROTECT Act's amendment to $ 3283 reflect that it
applies Maxwell's conduct charged in the S1 superseding indictment. The Court could stop here.
15
EFTA00029554

=== Page 16 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34
However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to
these charges.
At Lanfgraf's second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past
conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has presumptively
impermissible retroactive effects when it 'takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under
existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in
respect to transactions or considerations already past." Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting
Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time-
barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec.
Litig., 391 F.3d at 407. Applying it to conduct for which the statute of limitations has not yet
expired does not. Vernon V. Cassadaga Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 49 F.3d 886, 890 (2d Cir. 1995).
Maxwell concedes that these offenses were within the statute of limitations when
Congress enacted the PROTECT Act. Thus, the Act did not deprive her of any vested rights.
Maxwell contends that it is unfair to allow the Government to prosecute her now for conduct that
occurred more than twenty years ago, but there is no dispute that Congress has the power to set a
lengthy limitations period or no limitations period at all. It has done so here, judging that the
difficulty of prosecuting these offenses and the harm they work on children outweighs a
defendant's interest in repose. Maxwell's fairness argument is a gripe with Congress's policy
judgment, not an impermissibly retroactive application of the statute. The Court concludes that
§ 3283 allows her prosecution now.
B. The Government's delay in bringing charges did not violate due process
"As the Supreme Court stated in United States V. Marion, the statute of limitations is 'the
primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges." United States V. Cornielle,
16
EFTA00029555

=== Page 17 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 17 of 34
171 F.3d 748, 751 (2d Cir. 1999) (cleaned up) (quoting United States V. Marion, 404 U.S. 307,
322 (1971)). There is a strong presumption that an indictment filed within the statute of
limitations is valid. To prevail on a claim that pre-indictment delay violates due process, a
defendant must show both that the Government intentionally delayed bringing charges for an
improper purpose and that the delay seriously damaged the defendant's ability defend against the
charges. See id. This is a stringent standard. "Thus, while the [Supreme] Court may not have
shut the door firmly on a contention that at some point the Due Process Clause forecloses
prosecution of a claim because it is too old, at most the door is barely ajar." DeMichele V.
Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790-91 (2d Cir. 1999).
The Court sees no evidence that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was
designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense. However, it is enough to say that
Maxwell does not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support this sort of claim.
Maxwell contends that the Government's delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests
because potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or
destroyed. It is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference
in her case.
Maxwell first points to several potential witnesses who have passed away. These include
Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, one individual Maxwell believes worked with one of the alleged
victims in this case, and a police detective who investigated Epstein in Florida. She contends
they all would have provided exculpatory testimony were they alive today. Courts have
generally found that vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable
testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay. See, e.g., United States V. Scala, 388
F. Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court agrees with this approach. Maxwell
17
EFTA00029556

=== Page 18 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 18 of 34
provides no indication of what many of these potential witnesses might have testified to. The
testimony she suggests the detective might have offered-that witnesses in the Palm Beach
investigation did not identify Maxwell by name-is propensity evidence that does nothing to
establish her innocence of the charged offenses. There are also serious doubts under all of the
relevant circumstances that a jury would have found testimony from Epstein credible even if he
had waived his right against self-incrimination and testified on her behalf. See United States V.
Spears, 159 F.3d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999).
Maxwell's arguments that the indictment should be dismissed because of the possibility
of missing witnesses, failing memories, or lost records fail for similar reasons. These are
difficulties that arise in any case where there is extended delay in bringing a prosecution, and
they do not justify dismissing an indictment. United States V. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 325-26
(1971); see United States V. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1979).
Finally, the Court finds no substantial prejudice from the pretrial publicity this case has
garnered. Maxwell contends that lengthy public interest in this case has transformed her
reputation from that of Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator. And she also alleges-without
evidence-that her accusers fabricated their stories based on media allegations. The Court will
not dismiss the indictment on Maxwell's bare assertion that numerous witnesses are engaged in a
perjurious conspiracy against her. And the Court will take all appropriate steps to ensure that the
pretrial publicity in this case does not compromise Maxwell's right to a fair and impartial jury.
The Court thus concludes that Maxwell has failed to establish actual prejudice from the
Government's delay in bringing charges. She may renew her motion if the factual record at trial
shows otherwise. On the present record, neither the applicable statute of limitations nor due
process bars the charges here.
18
EFTA00029557

=== Page 19 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 19 of 34
III.
The indictment describes the charged offenses with specificity
Maxwell seeks to dismiss the Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or in the alternative
to compel the Government to submit a bill of particulars providing greater detail of the charges.
The Court concludes that the charges in the S1 superseding indictment are clear enough.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7, an indictment must contain "a plain,
concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged."
The indictment must be specific enough to inform the defendant of the charges and allow the
defendant to plead double jeopardy in a later prosecution based on the same events. United
States V. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir. 1992). "Under this test, an indictment need do
little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in
approximate terms) of the alleged crime." United States. V. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d
Cir. 1975). In addition to dismissal, "Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
permits a defendant to seek a bill of particulars in order to identify with sufficient particularity
the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to
prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second
time for the same offense." United States V. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987).
The S1 superseding indictment sets out the elements of each charged crime and the facts
supporting each element. Nonetheless, Maxwell contends that the indictment is too vague
because it refers to open-ended time periods, describes conduct like "grooming" and
"befriending" that is not inherently criminal, and does not identify the alleged victims by name.
Maxwell's first argument fails because the Government need only describe the time and
place of charged conduct "in approximate terms." Tramunti, 513 F.2d at 1113. The details are
subject to proof at trial. "[T]he Second Circuit routinely upholds the 'on or about' language used
19
EFTA00029558

=== Page 20 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 20 of 34
to describe the window of when a violation occurred." United States V. Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d
364, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting United States V. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir.
1987)). "This is especially true in cases of sexual abuse of children: allegations of sexual abuse
of underage victims often proceed without specific dates of the offenses." United States V.
Young, No. 08-cr-285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (collecting
cases). As here, these cases frequently involve alleged abuse spanning a lengthy period of time,
and witnesses who were victimized as children may struggle to recall the precise dates when
abuse occurred. The indictment adequately describes the time and place of the charged conduct.
Maxwell next contends that allegations of noncriminal conduct render the charges
impermissibly vague. The Court disagrees. Rule 7 requires only that the language of the
indictment track the language of the statute and provide a rough account of the time and place of
the crime. Tramunti, 513 F.2d at 1113. The language of the S1 superseding indictment does so.
The Government's decision to provide more details than those strictly required does not hamper
Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense. Maxwell's argument that some of the conduct alleged is
not inherently criminal goes to the merits of the Government's case, not the specificity of the
charges.
Finally, Maxwell argues that the indictment is vague because the government does not
provide the names of the alleged victims. The Court sees no basis to require that the alleged
victims' names be included the indictment. The names of victims, even if important, generally
need not appear there unless their omission would seriously prejudice the defendant. See United
States V. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 2013); United States V. Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d 364,
369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Maxwell likely knows the identity of the alleged victims described in the
indictment at this point because the Government has provided extensive discovery on them.
20
EFTA00029559

=== Page 21 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 21 of 34
Moreover, the Government has agreed to disclose their names in advance of trial. There is thus
no unfairness here. See Stringer, 730 F.3d at 126. As discussed below, the Court will require
the parties to negotiate and propose a full schedule for all remaining pretrial disclosures.
IV.
The perjury charges are legally tenable
The Court turns next to Maxwell's motion to dismiss the perjury counts stemming from
her answers to questions in a deposition in a civil case. She contends that these charges are
legally deficient because the questions posed were fundamentally ambiguous and the questions
were not material to the subject of the deposition. The Court concludes that the charges are
legally tenable and Maxwell's defenses are appropriately left to the jury.
The applicable perjury statute imposes criminal penalties on anyone who "in any
proceeding before or ancillary to any court knowingly makes any false material declaration."
18 U.S.C. $ 1623(a). Testimony is perjurious only if it is knowingly false and is material to the
proceeding in which the defendant offered it.
A. The questions posed were not too ambiguous to support a perjury charge
The requirement of knowing falsity requires that a witness believe that their testimony is
false. United States V. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367, 372 (2d Cir. 1986). As a general matter, "[a] jury is
best equipped to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.
Courts have acknowledged a narrow exception for questions that are so fundamentally
ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also
United States V. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally
ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte, 782 F.2d
at 375. The existence of some arguable ambiguity does not foreclose a perjury charge against a
witness who understood the question.
21
EFTA00029560

=== Page 22 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 22 of 34
At a minimum, Maxwell's motion is premature. Courts typically evaluate whether a
question was fundamentally ambiguous only after the development of a full factual record at
trial. See, e.g., United States V. Markiewicz, 978 F.2d 786, 808 (2d Cir. 1992). The evidence at
trial may shed further light on whether the questions posed were objectively ambiguous in
context or whether Maxwell subjectively understood them. In any event, the Court has closely
considered each of the categories of questions that Maxwell argues are ambiguous. None of the
alleged ambiguities Maxwell identifies rise to the level supporting dismissal of the charges. The
context of the questions and answers, in conjunction with the Government's evidence, could lead
a reasonable juror to conclude that the statements were perjurious. Truth and falsity are
questions for the jury in all but the most extreme cases. The Court declines to usurp the jury's
role on the limited pretrial record.
B. A reasonable juror could conclude that Maxwell's statements were material
Maxwell also argues that the perjury counts should be dismissed because none of the
allegedly false statements were material to the defamation action. In a civil deposition, a
statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence the court or if a truthful answer
might reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. United States V. Gaudin, 515
U.S. 506, 509 (1995); United States V. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 753-54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing
falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury,
not the court." Johnson V. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary
circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States V. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d
406, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23).
The charged statements do not fall within this narrow exception. Maxwell contends that
the questions did not relate to the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations at the center of the
22
EFTA00029561

=== Page 23 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 23 of 34
civil case, but that is not the legal standard. The Government may prevail if it proves that
Maxwell's answers could have led to the discovery of other evidence or could influence the
factfinder in the civil case. See Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509; Kross, 14 F.3d at 753-54. At trial, a
reasonable juror could conclude that truthful answers to the questions may have permitted the
plaintiff to locate other victims or witnesses who could have corroborated the plaintiff's
testimony. The factual disputes relating to materiality are at least enough to preclude pretrial
resolution. In criminal cases, courts must guard against "invading the 'inviolable function of the
jury' in our criminal justice system," and if the "defense raises a factual dispute that is
inextricably intertwined with a defendant's potential culpability, a judge cannot resolve that
dispute on a Rule 12(b) motion." United States V. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 281 (2d Cir. 2018).
The Court concludes that the perjury charges are legally tenable and appropriately
presented to the jury.
V.
The perjury charges must be severed and tried separately
Although the perjury charges are legally tenable, the Court concludes that the interests of
justice require severing those counts and trying them separately. Trying the perjury counts
together with the Mann Act counts would require admitting evidence of other acts likely to be
unduly prejudicial. It would also risk disqualifying Maxwell's chosen counsel based on their
involvement in the earlier civil case.
Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a court to order separate
trials if joining all offenses in a single trial would prejudice the defendant. A defendant seeking
severance must show significant unfairness to outweigh the burden on the court of conducting
multiple trials. United States V. Walker, 142 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 1998). The harm to the
defendant must be more than "solely the adverse effect of being tried for two crimes rather than
23
EFTA00029562

=== Page 24 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 24 of 34
one." United States V. Werner, 620 F.2d 922, 929 (2d Cir. 1980). Though this standard is
demanding, the Court concludes that, due to unique features of the perjury counts, Maxwell
meets it here. Trying all counts together would compromise Maxwell's right to the counsel of
her choice and risk an unfair trial.
Trying the perjury counts together with the Mann Act counts would risk an unfair trial on
each set of counts. First, it would introduce unrelated allegations of sexual abuse, which would
potentially expose the jury to evidence that might otherwise not be admissible. In particular, a
joint trial would potentially expose the jury to a wider swath of information regarding civil
litigation against Epstein that is remote from Maxwell's charged conduct. This presents a
significant risk that the jury will cumulate the evidence of the various crimes charged and find
guilt when, if considered separately, it would not do so. See United States V. Halper, 590 F.2d
422, 430 (2d Cir. 1978). Second, the evidence presented on the Mann Act counts may prejudice
the jury's ability to fairly evaluate Maxwell's truthfulness in her deposition, a critical element of
the perjury counts. The Court has concerns that a limiting instruction may be inadequate to
mitigate these risks given the nature of the allegations involved.
Importantly, a joint trial is also likely to require disqualification of at least one of
Maxwell's attorneys from participating as an advocate on her behalf. The perjury counts likely
implicate the performance and credibility of her lawyers in the civil action-two of whom
represent her in this case. The New York Rules of Professional Conduct generally forbid a
lawyer from representing a client in a proceeding in which the lawyer is likely also to be a
witness. N.Y. R. Prof'l Conduct $ 3.7(a). Maxwell's counsel in the civil action and the
deposition may be important fact witnesses on the perjury counts. Even if counsel were not
required to testify, trying all counts together could force Maxwell to choose between having her
24
EFTA00029563

=== Page 25 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 25 of 34
counsel testify on her behalf on the perjury charges and having them assist her in defending the
Mann Act charges.
The Second Circuit has recognized that witness testimony offered by a party's attorney
presents serious risks to the fairness of a trial. See Murray V. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173,
178 (2d Cir. 2009). The lawyer might appear to vouch for their own credibility, jurors might
perceive the lawyer as distorting the truth to benefit their client, and blurred lines between
argument and evidence might confuse the jury. Id. Disqualification of counsel also implicates
Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to be represented by the counsel of her choice. See, e.g.,
United States V. Kincade, No. 15-cr-00071 (JAD) (GWF), 2016 WL 6154901, at *6 (D. Nev.
Oct. 21, 2016). The prejudice to Maxwell is especially pronounced because the attorneys who
represented her in the civil case have worked with her for years and are particularly familiar with
the facts surrounding the criminal prosecution. See United States V. Cunningham, 672 F.2d
1064, 1070-71 (2d Cir. 1982).
The Court is of course cognizant of the burden separate trials may impose on all trial
participants. But much of the proof relevant to the perjury counts and the Mann Act counts does
not overlap. In particular, materiality for statements made in a civil deposition is broad, and
evidence on that question is unlikely to bear on the other charges here. See Kross, 14 F.3d at
753-54; Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509. Although some allegations of sexual abuse are relevant to
both sets of charges, many are not. At a minimum, this will expand the scope of the trial far
beyond the narrower issues presented. And while the Court agrees with the Government that at
least some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated, there is little question that the jury's
consideration of the nature of the defamation action will require a significant investment of time
and resources to provide the requisite context.
25
EFTA00029564

=== Page 26 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 26 of 34
The balance of these considerations favors severance. "Motions to sever are committed
to the sound discretion of the trial judge." United States V. Casamento, 887 F.2d 1141, 1149 (2d
Cir. 1989). In its discretion, the Court concludes that trying the perjury counts separately will
best ensure a fair and expeditious resolution of all charges in this case.
VI.
Maxwell's motion to strike surplusage is premature
Maxwell moves to strike allegations related to one of the alleged victims from the S1
superseding indictment as surplusage. The Court declines to do so at this juncture.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d) allows a court to strike surplusage from an
indictment on a defendant's motion. "Motions to strike surplusage from an indictment will be
granted only where the challenged allegations are not relevant to the crime charged and are
inflammatory and prejudicial." United States V. Hernandez, 85 F.3d 1023, 1030 (2d Cir. 1996)
(cleaned up). Courts in this District generally delay ruling on any motion to strike until after the
presentation of the Government's evidence at trial, because that evidence may affect how
specific allegations relate to the overall charges. See, e.g., United States V. Nejad, No. 18-cr-224
(AJN), 2019 WL 6702361, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2019); United States V. Mostafa, 965 F.
Supp. 2d 451, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Maxwell contends that the allegations related to "Minor Victim-3" are surplusage
because the indictment does not charge that Minor Victim-3 traveled in interstate commerce or
was below the age of consent in England where the alleged activities took place. Thus, she
argues, these allegations do not relate to the charged conspiracy and instead reflect an attempt to
introduce Minor Victim-3's testimony for impermissible purposes.
The Court will not strike any language from the S1 superseding indictment at this
juncture. The standard under Rule 7(d) is "exacting" and requires the defendant to demonstrate
26
EFTA00029565

=== Page 27 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 27 of 34
clearly that the allegations are irrelevant to the crimes charged. United States V. Napolitano, 552
F. Supp. 465, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). The indictment does not allege that the alleged victim
traveled in interstate commerce or was underage during sexual encounters with Epstein. But the
Court cannot rule out that the allegations may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the
charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell's state of mind. See United
States V. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992). The Court will follow the well-worn
path of others in this District and reserve the issue for trial. Maxwell may renew her motion
then.
VII.
Maxwell's motion to dismiss multiplicitous charges is premature
Maxwell's motion to dismiss either the first or third count of the S1 superseding
indictment as multiplicitous is also premature. Maxwell contends that the Government has
alleged the same conspiracy twice in the indictment. "An indictment is multiplicitous when it
charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact,
only one crime has been committed." United States V. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999).
"The multiplicity doctrine is based upon the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment,
which assures that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple
punishments for the same offense." United States V. Nakashian, 820 F.2d 549, 552 (2d Cir. 1987)
(cleaned up).
"Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause does
not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, so long as no more than one
punishment is eventually imposed." United States V. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir.
2006). "Since Josephberg, courts in this Circuit have routinely denied pre-trial motions to
dismiss potentially multiplicitous counts as premature." United States V. Medina, No. 13-cr-272
27
EFTA00029566

=== Page 28 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 28 of 34
(PGG), 2014 WL 3057917, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014) (collecting cases). The Court therefore
denies Maxwell's motion to dismiss multiplicitous counts without prejudice.
VIII. The parties shall negotiate all remaining disclosures
Maxwell moves to compel the Government to produce certain documents she believes it
has in its possession and has failed to produce. She also seeks accelerated disclosure of the
Government's witness list, Jencks Act material, Brady and Giglio material, co-conspirator
statements, and Rule 404(b) material. Based on the Government's response in briefing and
letters the parties have since submitted to the Court, it appears that most of these requests have
been overtaken by events. Accordingly, although the Court concludes that Maxwell is not
entitled to expedite this discovery based on the arguments in her motion papers, the Court will
require the parties to confer on an overall schedule for all remaining pretrial disclosures.
A. The Court accepts the Government's representations that it has disclosed all
Brady and Giglio Material
The Supreme Court's decisions in Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio V.
United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) require the Government to disclose to defendants certain
evidence that will aid their defense. Brady requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence. Under
Giglio, the Government has a duty to produce "not only exculpatory material, but also
information that could be used to impeach a key government witness." United States V. Coppa,
267 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154). As a general rule, "Brady and
its progeny do not require immediate disclosure of all exculpatory and impeachment material
upon request by a defendant." Id. at 146. "[A]s long as a defendant possesses Brady evidence in
time for its effective use, the government has not deprived the defendant of due process of law
simply because it did not produce the evidence sooner." Id. at 144.
28
EFTA00029567

=== Page 29 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 29 of 34
Maxwell requests an order directing immediate disclosure of all Brady and Giglio
material and also requests a few specific documents she contends the Government has failed to
disclose. The Court begins with the specific requests. The requested materials include (1)
records of witness interviews in connection with an ex parte declaration in support of a response
to a motion to quash subpoenas; (2) an unredacted copy of two FBI reports; (3) pages from a
personal diary that is in the custody of a civilian third party; and (4) copies of all subpoenas the
Government has issued for Maxwell's records as part of its investigation in this case.
The Government represents that it is cognizant of its Brady obligations, that is has
reviewed the witness interviews and one of the FBI reports, and that neither set of documents
includes exculpatory information not previously disclosed. The Court has no reason to doubt the
Government's representation in this case that it is aware of its Brady obligations and that it has
complied and will continue to comply with them. And because the witness statements are
covered by the Jencks Act, the Court cannot compel production of such statements under the
terms of the statute. See 18 U.S.C. $ 3500; Coppa, 267 F.3d at 145. Next, the Government
represents that it has already produced an unredacted copy of the other requested FBI report, and
so that request is moot. The diary pages she requests are within the control of a civilian third
party, not the Government, and so the Government need not (and perhaps cannot) produce them.
See United States V. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Finally, Maxwell's
request for copies of all subpoenas the Government has issued is overly broad and lacks a legal
basis. Maxwell is not entitled to compel production of these documents.
The Court also will not issue an order requiring the immediate disclosure of Brady and
Giglio material. The Government has represented that it recognizes its obligations under Brady
and that it has complied, and will continue to comply, with such obligations. The Court has no
29
EFTA00029568

=== Page 30 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 30 of 34
reason to doubt these representations given its expansive approach to document production thus
far in this case. The Government has agreed in its recent letter to produce Giglio material six
weeks in advance of trial. The parties shall negotiate the specific timing, but assuming a
schedule along those lines is met, the Court concludes that Maxwell will be able to effectively
prepare for trial. See Coppa, 267 F.3d at 144.
B. Jencks Act material and co-conspirator statements
Maxwell also seeks to expedite discovery of Jencks Act material and non-exculpatory
statements of co-conspirators that the government may offer at trial. The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C.
$ 3500, "provides that no prior statement made by a government witness shall be the subject of
discovery until that witness has testified on direct examination." Coppa, 267 F.3d at 145. The
statute therefore prohibits a district court in most cases from ordering the pretrial disclosure of
witness statements unless those statements are exculpatory. "A coconspirator who testifies on
behalf of the government is a witness under the Act." In re United States, 834 F.2d 283, 286 (2d
Cir. 1987). The Court therefore lacks the inherent power to expedite these disclosures. In any
case, the Government has agreed to produce all Jencks Act material at least six weeks in advance
of trial.
The Court also rejects Maxwell's alternative request for a hearing to determine the
admissibility of co-conspirator declarations. Co-conspirator statements may often be admitted at
trial on a conditional basis. If the Court determines that the Government has not met its burden
to show that the conditionally admitted statements were made in furtherance of the charged
conspiracy, the Court should provide a limiting instruction or, in extreme cases declare a
mistrial. United States V. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993). Although conditional
admissions can pose a problem, a pretrial hearing is unnecessary here because the Government
30
EFTA00029569

=== Page 31 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 31 of 34
has committed to producing co-conspirator statements at least six weeks in advance of trial to
allow Maxwell to raise any objections. Maxwell will have adequate time to object to any
proffered co-conspirator testimony following the Government's Jencks Act disclosures.
C. Witness list
As a general matter, "district courts have authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the
identity of government witnesses." United States V. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 300 (2d Cir. 1975).
In deciding whether to order accelerated disclosure of a witness list, courts consider whether a
defendant has made a specific showing that disclosure is "both material to the preparation of the
defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding the case." United States V.
Bejasa, 904 F.2d 137, 139-140 (2d Cir. 1990) (cleaned up).
Maxwell has made a particularized showing that the Government must produce a witness
list reasonably in advance of trial. The nature of the allegations in this case-decades-old
allegations spanning multiple locations-present considerable challenges for the preparation of
the defense. However, the Government's proposed disclosure schedule-which will afford
Maxwell at least six weeks to investigate testifying witness statements-allows Maxwell
significantly more time to review disclosures than schedules adopted in most cases in this
District. See, e.g., United States V. Rueb, No. 00-CR-91 (RWS), 2001 WL 96177, at *9
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001) (thirty days before trial); United States V. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 565,
580 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (fourteen days before trial). In addition, on April 13, 2021, the
Government produced over 20,000 pages of interview notes, reports and other materials related
to non-testifying witnesses. After considering the circumstances, including the complexity of the
issues in this case and what the defense has already received and likely learned in the course of
discovery, the Court concludes that the Government's proposal is generally reasonable.
31
EFTA00029570

=== Page 32 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 32 of 34
D. Rule 404(b) material
Maxwell's final discovery request is for early disclosure of evidence the Government
seeks to offer under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Under Rule 404(b), if the prosecutor in a
criminal case intends to use "evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act" against a defendant, the
prosecutor must "provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the
prosecutor intends to offer at trial" and must "do so in writing before trial-or in any form
during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice." The Government
represents that it will notify the defense of its intent to use 404(b) evidence at least 45 days in
advance of trial to allow Maxwell to file any motions in limine to be considered at the final
pretrial conference. The Government's proposal will give Maxwell an opportunity to challenge
admission of that evidence and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution
before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States V. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378
(AJN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is
generally reasonable, although additional time to enable briefing and resolution in advance of
trial is strongly encouraged.
The Court's denial of Maxwell's requests to compel pretrial disclosures does not preclude
the parties from negotiating in good faith for an expedited discovery timeline that will account
for Maxwell's specific concerns. "[I]n most criminal cases, pretrial disclosure will redound to
the benefit of all parties, counsel, and the court." United States V. Percevault, 490 F.2d 126, 132
(2d Cir. 1974). In general, the Court will require the parties to negotiate a final, omnibus
schedule to propose to the Court. The Court concludes that the disclosure of all of the above
materials approximately six to eight weeks in advance of trial is appropriate and sufficient.
32
EFTA00029571

=== Page 33 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 33 of 34
Given the complexities of the case and the addition of two counts via the S2 indictment, the
Court encourages the parties to agree to approximately eight weeks.
IX.
The S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge
The Court has not received supplemental briefing on the motions in light of the return of
the S2 superseding indictment and so does resolve any such issues here. 1 However, Maxwell's
motion seeking to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment because it was returned by a grand jury
sitting at the White Plains courthouse appears moot. Maxwell argued that the use of a grand jury
drawn from the White Plains Division in this District did not represent a fair cross-section of the
community, because her trial would proceed in the Manhattan Division. A grand jury sitting in
Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment. By April 21, 2021, Maxwell shall show
cause why her grand jury motion should not be dismissed on that basis.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES Maxwell's motions to dismiss the indictment as barred by Epstein's
non-prosecution agreement (Dkt. No. 141), to dismiss the Mann Act counts as barred by the
statute of limitations (Dkt. No. 143), to dismiss the indictment for pre-indictment delay (Dkt. No.
137), to dismiss the Mann Act counts for lack of specificity (Dkt. No. 123), to dismiss the
perjury counts as legally untenable (Dkt. No. 135), to strike surplusage (Dkt. No. 145), to
dismiss count one or count three as multiplicitous (Dkt. No. 121), and to expedite pretrial
disclosures (Dkt. No. 147). The Court GRANTS Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury counts
for a separate trial (Dkt. No. 119).
1 The parties shall negotiate and propose a schedule for any available additional or supplement rulings in
light of the filing of the S2 indictment.
33
EFTA00029572

=== Page 34 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 34 of 34
The Court ORDERS the Government to confirm within one week whether it considers
any evidence related to negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement to constitute Brady or Rule
16 material and, if so, to confirm that it has or will disclose such evidence.
The Court further ORDERS the parties to negotiate a final schedule for all pretrial
disclosures that remain outstanding, including: Brady, Giglio, and Jenks Act materials, including
co-conspirator statements; non-testifying witness statements; testifying witness statements; the
identity of victims alleged in the indictment; 404(b) material; and the Government's witness list.
The Court also requires the parties to negotiate a schedule for any additional or supplemental
motions briefing in light of the S2 indictment. The Court ORDERS a joint proposal to be
submitted by April 21, 2021. If agreement is not reached, the parties shall submit their
respective proposals.
The Court further ORDERS Maxwell to show cause by April 21, 2021 why her motion to
dismiss the S1 superseding indictment under the Sixth Amendment (Dkt. No. 125) should not be
denied as moot.
so ORDERED.
Dated: April 16, 2021
New York, New York
Alim D.Netto
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
34
EFTA00029573


