The Epstein Index

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search the files
j k
Move through a list of results
[ ]
Previous or next document
g g · G
Top or bottom of the page
Esc
Leave a search field or close this box
?
Show this box

Go to a page: g then

h
Index
t
Timeline
p
People
r
Redactions
x
Explore
w
News
l
Legislation
a
About

Court filing · March 29, 2021

Court filing, 2021-03-29

Second Circuit docketing notice, notice of appeal of Maxwell's bail denial, district court docket, and a transcript excerpt on waiving presence.Machine-written summary

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUDGE

Date: March 29, 2021

DOCKETING NOTICE

CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT

DC Docket #: I :20-cr-330-1

An appeal in the above-referenced case has been docketed under number: 21-770. This number must appear on all documents related to this case that are filed in this Court. Appellate counsel of record either represented the appellant before the district court, filed the notice of appeal, or acted as counsel for appellee in the district court. For pro se parties the docket sheet with the caption page, and an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form are enclosed. In counseled cases the docket sheet is available on PACER. Counsel must access the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form from this Court’s website http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov.

The form must be completed and returned within 14 days of the date of this notice. The form requires the following information:

YOUR CORRECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Review the party information on the docket sheet and note any incorrect information in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form.

The Court will contact one counsel per party or group of collectively represented parties when serving notice or issuing our order. Counsel must designate on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance a lead attorney to accept all notices from this Court who, in turn will, be responsible for notifying any associated counsel.

CHANGE IN CONTACT INFORMATION: An attorney or pro se party who does not immediately notify the Court when contact information changes will not receive notices, documents and orders filed in the case.

An attorney and any pro se party who is permitted to file documents electronically in CM/ECF must notify the Court of a change to the user’s mailing address, business address, telephone number, or e-mail. To update contact information, a Filing User must access PACER’s Manage My Appellate Filer Account, https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgi-bin/cmecf/ea-login.pl. The Court’s records will be updated within I business day of a user entering the change in PACER.

A pro se party who is not permitted to file documents electronically must notify the Court of a change in mailing address or telephone number by filing a letter with the Clerk of Court.

CAPTION: In an appeal, the Court uses the district court caption pursuant to FRAP 12(a), 32(a). For a petition for review or original proceeding the Court uses a caption pursuant to FRAP 15(a) or 21(a), respectively. Please review the caption carefully and promptly advise this Court of any improper or inaccurate designations in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance form. If a party has been terminated from the case the caption may reflect that change only if the district court judge ordered that the caption be amended.

APPELLATE DESIGNATIONS: Please review whether petitioner is listed correctly on the party listing page of the docket sheet and in the caption. If there is an error, please note on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form. Timely submission of the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form will constitute compliance with the requirement to file a Representation Statement required by FRAP 12(b).

For additional information consult the Court’s instructions posted on the website.

Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8577.

Criminal Notice of Appeal - Form A

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 3/24/2021

NOTICE OF APPEAL

United States District Court

Caption: United States of America

Ghislaine Maxwell

Docket No.: 20-CR-00330-AJN Alison J. Nathan (District Court Judge)

Notice is hereby given that Ghislaine Maxwell appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment     , other      ✓ Order on Third Motion for Release on Bail (Doc. 169) entered in this action on March 22, 2021 (specify) (date)

This appeal concerns: Conviction only | Sentence only | Conviction & Sentence | Other [ ✓

Defendant found guilty by plea | trial | N/A | ✓

Offense occurred after November 1, 1987? Yes | No | N/A | ✓

Date of sentence:                      N/A [ ✓

Bail/Jail Disposition: Committed [ ✓ ] Not committed | N/A |

Appellant is represented by counsel? Yes ✓ | No | If yes, provide the following information:

Defendant’s Counsel: David Oscar Markus

Counsel’s Address: Markus/ [REDACTED] PLLC 40 NW Third Street, Ph 1, Miami, Florida 33128

Counsel’s Phone: (305)379-6667

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Maurene Comey, Alison Moe & Lara Pomerantz

AUSA’s Address: The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza, New York, New York 10007

AUSA’s Phone: (212)637-2324

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cr-00330-AJN All Defendants

Case title: USA v. Maxwell

Date Filed: 06/29/2020

Assigned to: Judge Alison J. Nathan

Appeals court case number: 21-0058 U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circ.

Defendant (1)

Ghislaine Maxwell also known as Sealed Defendant 1

represented by Christian R. Everdell █ & Gresser LLP New York, NY 10022 212-707-7268 Fax: 212-957-4514 Email: ceverdell@cohengresser.com

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Haddon █ and █ Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628 Email: jpagliuca@hmflaw.com

Laura A. Menninger Haddon, █ and █, P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com

Mark Stewart █ █ & Gresser, LLP (NYC) New York, NY 10022 (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212)957-4514 Email: mcohen@cohengresser.com

Bobbi C Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. New York, NY 10007 (212) 243-1100 Fax: (888) 587-4737 Email: bc@sternheimlaw.com

Pending Counts

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

(1)

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

(1s)

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF A MINOT TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

(2)

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

(2s)

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

(3)

18:371.F 18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

(3s)

18:2423.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR FEMALE (TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY)

(4)

18:2423.F TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

(4s)

18:1623.F FALSE DECLARATIONS BEFORE GRAND JURY/COURT (PERJURY)

(5-6)

18:1623.F FALSE DECLARATIONS BEFORE GRAND JURY/COURT (5s-6s)

Highest Offense Level (Terminated)

Complaints

Plaintiff

USA

represented by Alex Rossmiller U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York 1 St. Andrew’s Plaza New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2415 Email: alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov PRO HAC VICE

Alison Gainfort Moe New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2225 Email: alison.moe@usdoj.gov

Maurene Ryan Comey New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2324 Email: maurene.comey@usdoj.gov

Andrew Rohrbach DOJ-USAO 1 St. Andrew’s Plaza New York, NY 10007 212-637-2345 Email: Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov

Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz United States Attorney’s Office One St. Andrew’s Plaza New York, NY 10007 212-637-2343 Fax: 212-637-2527 Email: Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov

Date Filed#Docket Text
06/29/20201SEALED INDICTMENT as to Sealed Defendant 1 (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-6. (jm) (Main Document 1 replaced on 7/2/2020) (jm). (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/20202Order to Unseal Indictment as to Sealed Defendant 1. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. [REDACTED] on 7/2/20)(jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020INDICTMENT UNSEALED as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Case Designated ECF as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Case as to Ghislaine Maxwell ASSIGNED to Judge Alison J. Nathan. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Attorney update in case as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney Alex Rossmiller, Maurene Ryan Comey, Alison Gainfort Moe for USA added. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/20204MOTION to detain defendant . Document filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court – District of New Hampshire. (jm) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/05/20205LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Alex Rossmiller dated July 5, 2020 re: Request to Schedule Initial Appearance Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 07/05/2020)
07/06/20206Rule 5(c)(3) Documents Received as to Ghislaine Maxwell from the United States District Court – District of New Hampshire. (jm) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/06/20207ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. This matter has been assigned to me for all purposes. In its July 5, 2020 letter, the Government on behalf of the parties requested that the Court schedule an arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in this matter in the afternoon of Friday, July 10. See Dkt. No. 5. In light of the COVID public health crisis, there are significant safety issues related to in-court proceedings. If the Defendant is willing to waive her physical presence, this proceeding will be conducted remotely. To that end, defense counsel should confer with the Defendant regarding waiving her physical presence. If the Defendant wishes to waive her physical presence for this proceeding, she and her counsel should sign the attached form in advance of the proceeding if feasible. If this proceeding is to be conducted remotely, there are protocols at the Metropolitan Detention Center that limit the times at which the Defendant could be produced so that she could appear by video. In the next week, the Defendant could be produced by video at either 9:00 a.m. on July 9, 2020 or sometime during the morning of July 14, 2020. Counsel are hereby ordered to meet and confer regarding scheduling for this initial proceeding in light of these constraints. If counsel does anticipate proceeding remotely, by 9:00 p.m. tonight, counsel should file a joint letter proposing a date and time for the proceeding consistent with this scheduling information, as well as a revised briefing schedule for the Defendant’s bail application.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/6/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/06/20208LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] dated July 6, 2020 re: Scheduling ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/07/20209LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/07/2020)
07/07/202010ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. An arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter is hereby scheduled to occur as a remote video/teleconference using an internet platform on July 14, 2020 at 1 p.m. In advance of the conference, [REDACTED] will email counsel with further information on how to access the video conference. To optimize the quality of the video feed, only the Court, the Defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for the Government will appear by video for the proceeding; all others may access the audio of the public proceeding by telephone. Due to the limited

capacity of the internet platform system, only one attorney per party may participate by video. Co-counsel, members of the press, and the public may access the audio feed of the proceeding by calling a dial-in number, which the Court will provide in advance of the proceeding by subsequent order. Given the high degree of public interest in this case, a video feed of the remote proceeding will be available for viewing in the Jury Assembly Room located at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. Due to social distancing requirements, seating will be extremely limited; when capacity is reached no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to arriving at the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Please see the instructions, attached. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. Face coverings that cover the nose and mouth must be worn at all times. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. As discussed in the Court’s previous order, defense counsel shall, if possible, discuss the Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding with the Defendant prior to the proceeding. See Dkt. No. 7. If the Defendant consents, and is able to sign the form (either personally or, in accordance with Standing Order 20-MC-174 of March 27, 2020, by defense counsel), defense counsel shall file the executed form at least 24 hours prior to the proceeding. In the event the Defendant consents, but counsel is unable to obtain or affix the Defendant’s signature on the form, the Court will conduct an inquiry at the outset of the proceeding to determine whether it is appropriate for the Court to add the Defendant’s signature to the form. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), the Government must make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights provided to them in that section. This includes [t]he right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding… involving the crime or of any release… of the accused and “[t]he right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release.” Id. § 3771(a)(2), (4). The Court will inquire with the Government as to the extent of those efforts. So that appropriate logistical arrangements can be made, the Government shall inform the Court by email within 24 hours in advance of the proceeding if any alleged victim wishes to be heard on the question of detention pending trial. Finally, the time between the Defendant’s arrest and July 6, 2020 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act due to the delay involved in transferring the Defendant from another district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). And the Court further excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from today through July 14, 2020. Due to the logistical issues involved in conducting a remote proceeding, the Court finds “that the ends of justice served by [this exclusion] outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The exclusion is also supported by the need for the parties to discuss a potential protective order, which will facilitate the timely production of discovery in a manner protective of the rights of third parties. See Dkt. No. 5. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/7/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/08/202011MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 9 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule. The Defense response is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 10, 2020. The Government reply is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 2020. Additionally, defense counsel is ordered to file notices of appearance on the docket by the end of the day today. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/10/2020. Replies due by 7/13/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/8/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202012NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202013NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202014NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Laura A. Menninger appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
07/08/2020)
07/08/202015MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202017(S1) SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FILED as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) count(s) 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s-6s. (jm) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/09/2020>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 15 MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (aea) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
07/09/202016ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. As discussed in its previous order, the Court will hold an arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter remotely as a video/teleconference on July 14, 2020 at 1 pm. Members of the press and the public in the United States may access the live audio feed of the proceeding by calling 855-268-7844 and using access code 32091812# and PIN 9921299#. Those outside of the United States may access the live audio feed by calling 214-416-0400 and using the same access code and PIN. These phone lines can accommodate approximately 500 callers on a first come, first serve basis. The Court will provide counsel for both sides an additional dial-in number to be used to ensure audio access to the proceeding for non-speaking co-counsel, alleged victims, and any family members of the Defendant. The United States Attorney’s Office should email [REDACTED] with information regarding any alleged victims who are entitled, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(4), to be heard at the bail hearing and who wish to be heard. The Court will then provide information as to the logistics for their dial-in access. As the Court described in a previous order, members of the press and public may watch and listen to the live video feed in the Jury Assembly Room, at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. See Dkt. No. 10. However, in light of COVID-19, seating will be limited to approximately 60 seats in order to enable appropriate social distancing and ensure public safety. Counsel for the Defendant and the Government may contact [REDACTED] by email if there is a request to accommodate alleged victims or family members of the Defendant. Members of the credentialed in-house press corps may contact the District Executive’s Office about seating. Otherwise, all seating will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis and in accordance with the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program and this Court’s previous order of July 7, 2020. See Dkt. No. 10. If conditions change or the Court otherwise concludes that allowing for in-person viewing of the video feed at the courthouse is not consistent with public health, the Court may provide audio access by telephone only. Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/9/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
07/10/202018MEMORANDUM in Opposition by Ghislaine Maxwell re 4 MOTION to detain defendant .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202019NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202020NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202021WAIVER of Personal Appearance at Arraignment and Entry of Plea of Not Guilty by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/13/202022REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 4 MOTION to detain defendant .. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/13/2020ORDER granting 15 Motion for Jeffrey Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/13/2020) (kwi) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/14/202023ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. For the reasons stated on the record at today’s proceeding, the Governments motion to detain the Defendant pending trial is hereby GRANTED (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/14/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan:Arraignment as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s held on 7/14/2020. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell present by video conference with attorney Mark [REDACTED] present by video conference, AUSA Alison Moe, Alex Rossmiller and Maurene Comey for the government present by video conference, Pretrial Service Officer Lea Harmon present by telephone and Court Reporter Kristine Caraannante. Defendant enters a plea of Not Guilty to the S1 indictment. Trial set for July 12, 2021. See Order. Time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from today until July 12, 2021. Bail is denied. Defendant is remanded. See Transcript. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan: Plea entered by Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s Not Guilty. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/202024Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Arraignment, Bail Hearing, Conference. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/15/202025ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Initial non-electronic discovery, generally to include search warrant applications and subpoena returns, is due by Friday, August 21, 2020. Completion of discovery, to include electronic materials, is due by Monday, November 9, 2020. Motions are due by Monday, December 21, 2020. Motion responses are due by Friday, January 22, 2021. Motion replies are due by Friday, February 5, 2021. Trial is set for Monday, July 12, 2021 ( Discovery due by 8/21/2020., Motions due by 12/21/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/15/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
07/21/202026ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court has received a significant number of letters and messages from non-parties that purport to be related to this case. These submissions are either procedurally improper or irrelevant to the judicial function. Therefore, they will not be considered or docketed. The Court will accord the same treatment to any similar correspondence it receives in the future. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/21/2020) (lnl) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/21/202027LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated July 21, 2020 re: Local Criminal Rule 23.1 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/23/202028ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Defense has moved for an order “prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case.” Dkt. No. 27 at 1. The Court firmly expects that counsel for all involved parties will exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court’s local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the rules of professional responsibility. In light of this clear expectation, the Court does not believe that further action is needed at this time to protect the Defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Accordingly, it denies the Defendant’s motion without prejudice. But the Court warns counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules. The Court will ensure strict compliance with those rules and will ensure that the Defendant’s right to a fair trial will be safeguarded. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/23/2020) (ap) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
07/27/202029LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Protective Order))(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202030AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202031LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to
defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison)
(Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202032MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 31 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020. ENDORSEMENT: The Government’s response to the Defense’s letter is due by 5 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The Defense may file a reply by 5 p.m. on July 29, 2020. Before the Government’s response is filed, the parties must meet and confer by phone regarding this issue, and any response from the Government must contain an affirmation that the parties have done so. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/28/2020. Replies due by 7/29/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/27/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/28/202033LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 28, 2020 re: 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed protective order))(Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/28/202034AFFIDAVIT of Alex Rossmiller by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Rossmiller, Alex)
(Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/29/202035LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 29, 2020 re 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
07/30/202036PROTECTIVE ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell…regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. SO ORDERED:
(Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
07/30/202037MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), “[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.” The good cause standard “requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others… whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant,” and “the public’s interest in the information.” United States v. [REDACTED], 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should “prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials”); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement “relating to” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a

statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded. The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law. In contrast, the Government’s proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the Defense to “reference[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant… to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial.” Dkt. No. 33-1, 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at stake. And as the Government’s letter notes, see Dkt. No. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis. Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense’s papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket. This resolves Dkt. No. 29. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/10/202038LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/10/202039AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/11/202040MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access. ENDORSEMENT: The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s letter motion by Thursday, August 13, 2020. The Defendant’s reply, if any, is due on or before Monday, August 17, 2020. (Responses due by 8/13/2020. Replies due by 8/17/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/11/2020) (ap) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
08/13/202041LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated August 13, 2020 re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
08/17/202042LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 17, 2020 re 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/17/202043LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/18/202044ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion seeking a modification of this Court’s Protective Order, which the Court entered on July 30, 2020. Defendant also moves to file that letter motion under seal. The Governments opposition to Defendant’s letter motion is hereby due Friday, August
21 at 12 p.m. The Defendant’s reply is due on Monday, August 24 at 12 p.m. The parties shall propose redactions to the letter briefing on this issue. Alternatively, the parties shall provide support and argument for why the letter motions should be sealed in their entirety. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 8/21/2020. Replies due by 8/24/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/18/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 08/18/2020)
08/20/202045NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz appearing for USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 08/20/2020)
08/20/202050SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
08/21/202046LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: 43 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/21/202047LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: Proposed redactions to letter briefing, in response to the Court’s Order of August 18, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/24/202048LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Laura A. Menninger dated August 24, 2020 re: Request to File Under Seal: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order and Reply in Support Thereof . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/24/2020)
08/25/202049MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: denying without prejudice 38 LETTER MOTION as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). On August 10, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion related to two issues. Dkt. No. 38. First, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Government to disclose to defense counsel immediately the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment. Second, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to release the Defendant into the general population and to provide her with increased access to the discovery materials. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED without prejudice…[See this Memorandum Opinion And Order]… III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s requests contained in Dkt. No. 38 are DENIED without prejudice. Following the close of discovery, the parties shall meet and confer on an appropriate schedule for pre-trial disclosures, including the disclosure of § 3500 material, exhibit lists, and witness lists, taking into account all relevant factors. The Government is hereby ORDERED to submit written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials and ability to communicate with defense counsel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/25/2020) (bw) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
09/02/202051MEMORANDUMOPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a sealed letter motion seeking an Order modifying the protective order in this case. Specifically, she sought a Court order allowing her to file under seal in certain civil cases (“Civil Cases”) materials (“Documents”) that she received in discovery from the Government in this case. She also sought permission to reference, but not file, other discovery material that the Government produced in this case. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/2/2020)(See MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as set forth) (Inl) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/02/202052LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated 8/17/2020 re: Defense counsel writes with redacted request to modify protective order. (ap) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/04/202055NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 51 Memorandum & Opinion. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number 465401266036. (tp) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
09/08/202053LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020 re: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order. (jbo) (Entered: 09/08/2020)
09/08/20205.4LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020
09/09/2020Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine
09/09/2020Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
09/10/202056SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/10/202057SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/24/202058SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
10/05/20205.2NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Bobbi C Sternheim appearing for
10/06/2020ft()LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/06/202061 AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene)
10/07/202062MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 66 Accordingly, the
10/07/202062LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/14/202064LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
10/20/202055LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/23/2020fifjLETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S.
10/30/202061 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
I I /05/20206KORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: This Order is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of
11/06/202069LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/06/202070AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/09/202071MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 55 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 20-3061-cr. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to consolidate is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 11/09/2020. (nd) (Entered: 11/09/2020)
11/09/202072MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 69 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby extends the deadline for the Government’s production of electronic discovery from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020. The Court also grants the parties’ request for an extension of the motions deadlines as follows: the Defendant’s motions are due by January 11, 2021, the Government’s responses are due by February 12, 2021, and any replies are due by February 19, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Discovery due by 11/23/2020. Motions due by 1/11/2021. Responses due by 2/12/2021. Replies due by 2/19/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/9/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 11/10/2020)
11/18/202073MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 60 Letter filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: The Government respectfully requests that the Court approve the Government’s request to delay disclosure of these Materials…ENDORSEMENT…There is no dispute that the materials referenced in the Government’s letter will be turned over to the defense. The Government has indicated that it will do so. The only dispute, then, relates to the timing of such disclosure. See Dkt. Nos. 64, 65. Because the Government has articulated plausible reasons for some delay of disclosure, see Dkt. No. 65 at 4, the Court grants the Government’s request to delay disclosure. However, the Governments proposal to delay disclosure until 8 weeks in advance of trial is insufficient. In order to ensure that the defense can adequately prepare for trial, the Government shall produce the referenced materials, which are not voluminous, to the defense by March 12, 2021. Disclosure of the materials will of course be subject to the protective order entered by the Court, see Dkt. No. 36. (Government Responses due by 3/12/2021) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/18/20)(jw) (Entered: 11/18/2020)
11/23/202074LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 23, 2020 re: Update Regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/23/2020)
11/24/202075LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
11/24/202076MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 75 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s request that Warden Heriberto Tellez directly address Defendant’s concerns regarding the conditions of her detention. The parties shall jointly submit a status update within one week of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/24/2020) (ap) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
12/01/202077ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter request under seal. On November 30, 2020, she filed a second letter request in which she proposed redactions on both letters. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter request and to the request for proposed redactions by no later than December 2, 2020. The letters shall be
temporarily sealed while the Court resolves the redaction request. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/1/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/01/202078LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/02/202079MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 78 LETTER by USA addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement. ENDORSEMENT: MDC legal counsel shall submit their letter to the Court by December 4, 2020. Upon review of that letter, the Court will determine whether any additional information is required, either orally or in writing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/2/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/02/202080LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 2, 2020 re: Defense Requests for Sealing Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/03/202081ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80. After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government. The Court’s decision is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to ‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the Defendant’s letter motions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forthincluding, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the lettersfavor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons outlined in the Government’s letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant’s forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202082SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202083SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202084SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/04/202085LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 4, 2020 re: Briefing Schedule (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202086LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202087LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/30/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/07/202088LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru and John Wallace dated 12/4/20 re: This letter is written in response to your order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention center in Brooklyn, New York. You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwells confinement and well-being. (jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202089ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 85 Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant’s December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the following schedule: The Defendants submission is due December 8, 2020; The Government’s response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant’s reply is due December 18, 2020. After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. The Court grants the Defendants request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions. Any objections to proposed redactions are due within 24 hours after any brief has been filed. Finally, the Defendant is granted leave to file a motion not to exceed 40 pages. The Governments response shall also be limited to 40 pages. The Defendant’s reply shall not exceed 10 pages ( Defendant submission due by 12/8/2020., Defendant Replies due by 12/18/2020., Government Responses due by 12/16/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/7/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202090ENDORSED LETTER as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] and Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/20 re: On behalf of my client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we plan to file a Renewed Motion for Release on Bail (the “Motion”) and respectfully request an in camera conference, with all counsel present, to address the appropriate procedures for the filing and consideration of the Motion. For the reasons explained below, we intend to request, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(d), that the Court permit the filing of portions of the Motion and certain supporting materials under seal and require that any responsive materials be filed under seal…ENDORSEMENT: The Court sees no basis for the sealing of this letter. On or before December 2, 2020, Defendant shall justify why this letter should be sealed (or redacted). Alternatively, the Defendant may file the letter on the public docket by that date. The Court will take no action on the request pending resolution of the initial sealing question. The Defendant’s letter and this memorandum endorsement will be temporarily sealed pending resolution of the sealing request. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/25/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202091LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 12/07/2020 re: Response to MDC Report to Court re: conditions (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/08/202092ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 4, 2020, the Court received a letter from MDC legal counsel responding to the concerns that the Defendant raised in her November 24, 2020 letter. See Dkt. Nos. 75, 88; see also Dkt. No. 78. The Defendant responded to the MDC legal counsel’s letter on December 7, 2020, reiterating her request that the Court summon Warden Heriberto Tellez to personally respond to questions from the Court regarding the Defendant’s conditions of confinement. See Dkt. No. 91. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, along with the MDC legal counsel’s December 4, 2020 letter, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request to summon the Warden to personally appear and respond to questions. This resolves Dkt. No. 75. Notwithstanding this, as originally provided in Dkt. No. 49, the Government shall continue to submit written status updates detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials, including legal mail and email, and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. The updates shall also include information on the frequency of searches of the Defendant. The Court hereby ORDERS the Government to submit these written updates every 60 days. Furthermore, the Government shall take all
necessary steps to ensure that the Defendant continues to receive adequate access to her legal materials and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/8/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/10/202093TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Conference held on 7/14/2020 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristen Carannante, (212) 805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/31/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/11/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/10/2021. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020)
12/10/202094NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/14/2020 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days… (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020)
12/14/202095ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed her renewed application for bail under seal with proposed redactions, in accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions. After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions. The Court’s decision to adopt those redactions is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) (“Amodeo II”)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that Defendant’s letter motions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,’ thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the redactions are narrowly tailored to properly guard the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the Defendant’s submission and in the corresponding exhibits The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/14/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/14/202096LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 8, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/14/202097MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/17/202098NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Andrew Rohrbach appearing for USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2020)
12/18/202099ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 16, 2020, the Government filed its opposition to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, the Government filed its materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on
those materials. The Defendant did not file any opposition to the Government’s proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Government’s proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to ‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Governments submissions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties’ personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460 467 (S.D.N.Y.2017). The Government is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 18, 2 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/18/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/18/2020100MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell Renewed Bail Motion . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/23/2020101ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government’s opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to ‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant’s submissions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). As with the redactions to her renewed motion for bail, the proposed redactions here are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See also Dkt. No. 95. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020102LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 18, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Reply Memorandum for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020103REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/28/2020104ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for releaseon bail. Dkt No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s
motion. In light of the fact that the Opinion includes potentially confidential information that should not be filed on the public docket, the Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Courts Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuits decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion and Order on the public docket. As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pretrial detention continues to be warranted. On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal. This resolves Dkt No. 97. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/28/2020)
12/30/2020105LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 30, 2020 re: Joint Letter re December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/30/2020106OPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The Court held a lengthy bail hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive briefing and argument at the hearing, the Court concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwells renewed motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 97, is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/31/2020107LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/31/2020)
01/05/2021108MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) on 107 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/5/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/05/2021Set/Reset Deadlines as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Motions due by 1/25/2021. Responses due by 2/26/2021. Replies due by 3/5/2021. (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/08/2021109LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 01/08/2021)
01/11/2021110SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021111SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021112MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) denying 109 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. ENDORSEMENT: The request is denied. Good cause for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal has not been provided. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/11/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021113NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 104 Order. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/11/2021Appeal Remark as to re: 113 Notice of Appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. $505.00 Appeal filing fee due. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 113 Notice of Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 113 Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/13/2021114INTERNET CITATION NOTE as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Material from decision with Internet citation re: 106 Memorandum & Opinion. (sjo) (Entered: 01/13/2021)
01/14/2021115LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 14, 2021 re: Laptop Access (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 01/14/2021)
01/15/2021116MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 115 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 14, 2021 re: Laptop Access. ENDORSEMENT: The unobjected-to request is GRANTED. The Bureau of Prisons is ORDERED to give the Defendant access to the laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/15/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/15/2021USCA Case Number 21-0058 from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circ. as to Ghislaine Maxwell, assigned to 113 Notice of Appeal filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (nd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/15/2021USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505.00, receipt number 465401271727 as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 01/15/2021 re: 113 Notice of Appeal filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (nd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/25/2021117ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On January 25, 2021, the Court received by email the attached letter from the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). In the letter, the BOP requests that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 116, which directed the BOP to give the Defendant access to her Government provided laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. The Defendant and the Government may respond to the BOP’s letter within one week of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/25/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021118LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] dated January 25, 2021 re: Pretrial Motions ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021119MOTION for Separate Trial on Counts Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 5s-6s,5-6 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021120MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 119 MOTION for Separate Trial on Counts Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 5s-6s,5-6 .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021121MOTION to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021122MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 121 MOTION to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021123MOTION to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021124MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 123 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021125MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as it was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021126MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 125 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as it was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment ..
( [REDACTED] , Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/26/2021127ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed twelve pre-trial motions. Because there is a request to redact sensitive or confidential information, several of the motions have been filed under temporary seal. The Government may respond to the Defendant’s proposed redactions within two days of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/26/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/26/2021)
01/28/2021128LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated January 28, 2021 re: Defendant’s Proposed Redactions to Pre-Trial Motions Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 01/28/2021)
02/01/2021129LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated February 1, 2021 re: MDC Laptop Access Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/01/2021)
02/01/2021130LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 02/02/2021 re: Opposition to MDC letter (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/01/2021)
02/02/2021131MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru ( Staff Attorney, MDC Brooklyn, Federal Bureau of Prisons) dated January 25, 2021. ENDORSEMENT: Having considered the request submitted by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 117, as well as the Government’s and the Defendant’s responses, Dkt. Nos. 129, 130, the Court hereby DENIES the BOP’s request to vacate the Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/2/2021)(bw) (Entered: 02/02/2021)
02/04/2021132ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than February 5, 2021. With respect to Motion 3, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the version that includes the Government’s proposed redactions in addition to her own. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/4/2021)(See ORDER as set forth) (lnl) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021133MOTION to Suppress Under the Due Process Clause All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021134MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 133 MOTION to Suppress Under the Due Process Clause All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021135MOTION to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021136MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 135 MOTION to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021137MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021138MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 137 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021139MOTION to Suppress Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021140MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 139 MOTION to Suppress Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six . (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021141MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021142MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 141 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit D (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit E (Sealed), # 6 Exhibit F (Sealed), # 7 Exhibit G (Sealed), # 8 Exhibit H (Sealed))([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021143MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021144MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 143 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021145MOTION to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021146MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 145 MOTION to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021147MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021148MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 147 MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit C (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit D (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit E)([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021149AFFIDAVIT of Bobbi C. Sternheim in Support as to Ghislaine Maxwell re 147 MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures.. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/05/2021150SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021151SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021152SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021153SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021154SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021155SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021156SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021157SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021158LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated February 5, 2021 re: MDC Conditions Update Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/16/2021159LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 02/16/2021 re: Conditions of Pretrial Confinement (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/16/2021)
02/23/2021160THIRD MOTION for Bond . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/23/2021)
02/24/2021161ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On February 23, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a third motion for release on bail. Dkt. No. 160. The Government’s response is due March 9, 2021, and the Defendants reply is due March 16, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 3/9/2021. Replies due by 3/16/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/24/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 02/24/2021)
02/26/2021162LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated February 26, 2021 re: Cover Letter for Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/26/2021)
03/01/2021163LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 1, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Reply to Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/01/2021164MEMO ENDORSEMENT 163 LETTER MOTION To request a 10-day extension of time until Monday, March 15, 2021 to file our reply re: 163 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 1, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Briefing Schedule…ENDORSEMENT…The Defendant’s request is GRANTED. Her reply to the Government’s Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendants Pretrial Motions is now due on March 15, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/1/21) (jw) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/01/2021Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Replies due by 3/15/2021 (jw) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/09/2021165LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated March 9, 2021 re: Opposition to Third Bail Motion Document filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 03/09/2021)
03/15/2021166LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 15, 2021 re: Pretrial Motion Replies (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 03/15/2021)
03/16/2021167LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 03/16/2021 re: Letter regarding Reply to Bail Motion (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 03/16/2021)
03/18/2021168ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On February 26, 2021, the Government filed its omnibus memorandum of law opposing Defendants’ twelve pretrial motions. It filed the brief, along with the corresponding exhibits, under temporary seal pending the Court’s resolution of its request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 162. On March 9, 2021, the Defendant objected to certain of the redactions that the Government had proposed, and she proposed additional redactions. Having considered the parties’ respective positions, the Court will grant the Government’s requests for redactions and sealing, as well as the Defendant’s additional redaction requests, with the exceptions discussed below. Finally, the Court denies the Governments request to file Exhibit 11 entirely under seal. While portions of that transcript have been redacted, other portions are part of the public record. See [REDACTED] v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 1212-1. In light of this, the Court sees no basis to file the transcript entirely under seal rather than by redacting the relevant portions. In light of the above, the Government is hereby ORDERED to either docket on ECF their brief and the corresponding exhibits, consistent with this Order, or to file a letter with the Court justifying more tailored redaction and sealing requests regarding pages 1128 and 187188 and Exhibits 8 and 9 by no later than March 22, 2021. The parties are further ORDERED to meet, confer, and jointly propose redactions to the Defendant’s cover letter objecting to the Government’s proposed redactions by March 22, 2021. Finally, the parties are ORDERED to meet, confer, and propose redactions to Exhibit 11 of the Government’s submission by March 22, 2021 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/18/21)(jw) (Entered: 03/18/2021)
03/22/2021169ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s third motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 160, is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and propose and justify any redactions to the Defendant’s reply brief by March 24, 2021. If they conclude that redactions are unnecessary, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the unredacted version of the brief by March 24, 2021. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/22/2021) (See ORDER set forth) (ap) Modified on 3/23/2021 (ap). (Entered: 03/22/2021)
03/22/2021170LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated March 22, 2021 re: Redactions to Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 03/22/2021)
03/23/2021171REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 160 THIRD MOTION for Bond . . (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 03/23/2021)
03/24/2021172ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On March 5, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submitted to the Court an application for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The proposed subpoena was directed at a law firm that represents alleged victims of the Defendant. As is standard for Rule 17(c) subpoenas, the application was made ex parte and under seal on the ground that it reveals defense strategy…[*** See this Order ***]… Rule 17(c)(3) provides that “[a]fter [an indictment] is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order,” but “before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). Consistent with the Rule, on March 12, 2021, in a sealed ex parte Order, the Court required defense counsel to provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be disclosed by the proposed subpoena. The Court also gave the alleged victims an opportunity to object to or request modifications of the subpoena as required by Rule 17(c)(3). On March 19, 2021, the Court received a letter from the law firm indicating that it can provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be elicited by the subpoena. The law firm shall provide notice to any such alleged victims it represents. In that letter, the law firm also interposed substantial objections on behalf of the law firm and the alleged victims it represents. Those objections are functionally the equivalent of a motion to quash, even though the subpoena has not yet issued. So that the Court can receive adversarial briefing on the proposed subpoena comparable to a motion to quash, the law firm shall enter an appearance and file its objections on the public docket. See United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (“[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied.”). In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues can be narrowed before formal briefing. Moreover, prior to filing, the law firm shall confer with defense counsel as to any proposed, necessary, and tailored redactions to the objections. The law firm’s objections with any proposed redactions shall be filed on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena objections. The law firm may reply within three days of the Defendant’s response.(See Citation 1 on this Order). Counsel shall confer regarding any proposed redactions for all briefing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/24/2021)(bw) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021173NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 169 Order, Terminate Motions. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021Appeal Remark as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 173 Notice of Appeal. $505.00 Appeal Fee Due. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 173 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
03/24/2021174SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021175SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021176SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 3/22/21

United States of America,

-v-

Ghislaine Maxwell,

20-CR-330 (AJN)

ORDER

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:

Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.

On July 14, 2020, the Court held a lengthy bail hearing and concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. It therefore denied bail. On December 8, 2020, the Defendant filed a renewed motion for release on bail pending trial, which was entered into the public docket on December 14, 2020. Dkt. No. 96. On December 28, 2020, the Court denied that motion, concluding that the Defendant posed a risk of flight and that no combination of conditions could ensure her appearance. Dkt. Nos. 104, 106.

The Defendant then filed a third motion for release on bail on February 23, 2021. Dkt. No. 160. In this motion, the Defendant attempts to respond to the reasons that the Court

provided in denying bail, proposing two additional conditions to the ones she proposed in her second motion for bail. Specifically, she offers to renounce her and British citizenship, and she also proposes to have her and her spouse’s assets placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal judge. See Dkt. No. 160 at 2.

As set forth below, the Court concludes that none of the Defendant’s new arguments and proposals disturb its conclusion that the Defendant poses a risk of flight and that there are no combination of conditions that can reasonably assure her appearance. Thus, for substantially the same reasons that the Court denied the Defendant’s first and second motions for release, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s third motion for release on bail.

1. Background

On July 14, 2020, this Court held a hearing regarding the Defendant’s request for bail. After a thorough consideration of all of the Defendant’s arguments and of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concluded that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance, determining as a result that the Defendant was a flight risk and that detention without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The Defendant has been incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time.

The Defendant renewed her motion for release on bail on December 8, 2020. The Court again denied the Defendant’s motion. In doing so, the Court explained that none of the Defendant’s new arguments materially impacted its conclusion that the Defendant posed a risk of flight. It noted that the charges, which carry a presumption of detention, are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and corroborated witnesses, remained strong; the Defendant’s substantial resources and foreign ties created considerable uncertainty and opportunities for

escape; and that the Defendant’s lack of candor regarding her family ties and financial situations raised serious doubts as to her willingness to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court. See Dkt. No. 106.

On February 23,2021, the Defendant filed a third motion for release on bail. Dkt. No. 160 (“Def. Mot.”). The Government opposed the Defendant’s motion on March 9,2021. Dkt. No. 165 (“Gov’t Opp’n”). The Defendant filed her reply under temporary seal on March 16, 2021.

H. Legal Standard

The parties dispute whether the divestiture of jurisdiction rule precludes this Court from granting the Defendant’s third bail motion while Defendant’s bail appeal is pending. See Gov’t Opp’n at 2-3; Reply at 2-3; see also United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247,251 (2d Cir. 1996) (“As a general matter, ‘the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”) (citation omitted). Under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, the Court unquestionably has authority to defer considering the motion, deny the motion, or state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue. Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a). Because the Court denies the Defendant’s motion, it does not resolve the question of whether it would have jurisdiction to grant it.

Pretrial detainees have a right to bail under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. The Bail Reform Act requires that a court release a defendant “subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that [it] determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the

person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(cXI)(B). The Court may order that the defendant be held without bail only if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).

After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Bail Reform Act allows the Court to reopen the bail hearing if “information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue” of whether pretrial detention is warranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0. The Court is not required to do so if it determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-204I (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that “[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another”); United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing because the new information would not have changed the court’s decision to detain the defendant until trial). In addition, the Court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent authority, even when the circumstances do not match § 3142(0’s statutory text. See, e.g., United States v. No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at *I (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) (noting that “a release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing.”); United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the “Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision”).

If, as here, there is probable cause to find that the defendant committed an offense specifically enumerated in § 3142(e)(3), a rebuttable presumption arises “that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure” the defendant’s appearance or the safety of the community or others. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). In such circumstances, “the defendant ‘bears a limited burden of production … to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight?” United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[A] defendant must introduce some evidence contrary to the presumed fact in order to rebut the presumption.”).

Nonetheless, “‘the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant presents a danger to the community,’ and `by the lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight.”’ English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436); see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) (“The government retains the burden of persuasion [in a presumption case].”).

Even when “a defendant has met his burden of production,” however, “the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.” United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290-91 (2d Cir. 2020).

III. Discussion

The Defendant bases her third motion for bail on the Court’s inherent powers to review its own bail decisions, arguing that the new conditions she proposes warrant reconsideration of the Court’s earlier rulings. See Def. Mot. at 4. She also argues that the strength of the Government’s case is diminished in light of the arguments she advances in her pre-trial motions, which are currently pending before the Court. Id. at 7. Having considered those arguments, the

Court’s view has not changed. The Court again concludes that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant presents a risk of flight and that there are no set of conditions, including the Defendant’s third set of proposed conditions, that are sufficient to reasonably assure her appearance. The presumption in favor of detention, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the Defendant all continue to support that conclusion. The Defendant’s proposed conditions do not alter the Court’s determination.

A. The Court’s assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors has not changed

To begin with, the presumption in favor of detention continues to apply with equal force. See Dkt. No. 106 (“Dec. Op.”) at 7—8. And though the Court again concludes that the Defendant has met her burden of production, the presumption “remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.” Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436 (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). The Court is mindful “that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that ‘a strong probability arises’ that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance.” Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 (citation omitted).

The Court’s analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors also remains unchanged. Because the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged include crimes involving a minor victim, the first 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factor continues to weigh strongly in favor of detention. And the Court remains of the opinion that the Defendant does not pose a danger to any person or to the community. The fourth § 3142(g) factor thus weighs against detention.

With respect to the second § 3142(g) factor, none of the Defendant’s new arguments alter the Court’s conclusion as to the weight of the evidence. The Defendant argues that the pre-trial motions “raise serious legal issues that could result in dismissal of charges, if not the entire indictment,” and she contends that It]hese motions cast substantial doubt on the alleged strength of the government’s case and warrant granting bail on the conditions proposed.” Def. Mot. at 7. Those motions became fully briefed one week ago and are now pending before this Court. The Government strenuously contests each of the motions and the Court has not yet adjudicated them. Without prejudging the merits of any of those pending motions and mindful of the presumption of innocence, the Court remains of the view that in light of the proffered strength and nature of the Government’s case, the weight of the evidence supports detention. See Dec. Op. at 9-10.

The Court’s assessment of the Defendant’s history and characteristics has not changed. See Dec. Op. at 10-16. The Defendant continues to have substantial international ties, familial and personal connections abroad, substantial financial resources, and experience evading detection. Id. at 10-11. And the Court’s concerns regarding the Defendant’s lack of candor regarding her assets when she was first arrested have also stayed the same. As the Court emphasized in its denial of the second motion for release on bail, the discrepancies between the information presented to the Court and to Pretrial Services in July 2020 and the information presented to the Court in December 2020 raised significant concerns about candor. See Dec. Op. at 16. There remains considerable doubt as to the Defendant’s willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release. Id. While there continue to be certain mitigating circumstances cutting in the opposite direction, including the Defendant’s family ties in the United States, these do not overcome the weight of the considerations that lean in favor of continued detention.

As a result, none of the evidence or arguments presented in this third motion for bail alter the Court’s assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors. While the fourth factor continues to favor release, the first three factors and the presumption of detention all support the conclusion

that the Defendant poses a significant risk of flight. Thus, the Court again concludes that there are no conditions of release that will reasonably assure her appearance in future proceedings.

13. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted

The thrust of the Defendant’s argument in her third motion for bail is that the two new proposed conditions vitiate the Court’s concerns regarding the risk of flight. The Defendant first offers to renounce her and British citizenship. Def. Mot. at 2. And she also proposes to have most of her and her spouse’s assets placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal judge, who would function as an asset monitor and will have co-signing authority over the account. Id. Those conditions are offered in addition to the bail package she proposed in December. See Dec. Op. at 16-17; see also Def. Mot. at 2. The new bail package does not disturb the Court’s conclusion that the Government has carried its burden of showing that these conditions are insufficient to mitigate the flight risks, and the Court again determines that no set of conditions—including the two new ones—can reasonably assure her future appearance.

The Court begins with the Defendant’s offer to renounce her and United Kingdom citizenship. She notes that she can renounce her UK citizenship “immediately upon granting of bail,” and she informs the Court that “[t]he process of renouncing her citizenship, while not immediate, may be expedited.” Def. Mot. at 4. As the Government notes, the offer is of unclear validity, and the relevance and practical impact of the renunciations is, at best, unclear. See Gov’t Opp’n at 5. With respect to her offer to renounce her citizenship, the Court is again confronted with dueling opinions on the correct interpretation of law. The Government relies on the position of the head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, who argues that “the fact that the wanted individual is a national constitutes an insuperable obstacle to his/her removal,” and that “[a]s long as said

nationality is assessed at the time the offense was committed, any loss of nationality subsequent to said offense has no bearing upon the removal proceedings and shall not supersede said assessment of nationality.”’ Gov’t Opp’n, Ex. A at 2. The Defendant, meanwhile, relies on the opinion of a legal expert who argues that nationality is assessed at the time of the extradition request See Reply, Ex. A 1 11. The Defendant’s expert concedes that there is no case law addressing this precise issue. Id. 1 21.

Exacerbating the uncertainty is the fact that the relevant legal materials also lend themselves to multiple interpretations. For instance, Article 3(1) the Extradition Treaty between the United States and France of April 23, 1996 provides that “[t]here is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the United States if, in its discretion, it deems it proper to do so. The nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of that person at the time the offense was committed.” See Reply, Ex. A 1 9 (emphasis added)). Article 694-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure similarly provides that “Extradition shall not be granted … [w]hen the person claimed has nationality, the latter being assessed at the time of the offense for which extradition is requested.”2 Id. 1 10; see also Gov’t Opp’n, Ex. A at 2. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty as to the relevance of the Defendant’s offer of renunciation of her citizenship to her ability to frustrate, if not entirely bar, extradition. The Court’s assessment of the risks largely

The Court cites the translated version of the letter, though the original letter is in

{sup}2 Here, there are minor discrepancies between the two sides’ respective translations. The translated letter from the Ministry of Justice cites Article 694-4 as reading, “When the individual claimed to have citizenship, said citizenship having been assessed at the time of the offense on the basis of which removal is being requested.” Gov’t Opp’n, Ex. A at 2.

parallel those that the Court articulated when the Defendant proposed signing an extradition waiver. See Dec. Op. at 12-13.

Similar doubts exist as to the Defendant’s offer to renounce her UK citizenship. The Court is persuaded by the Government’s arguments that even if the Defendant were to renounce her UK citizenship, she would still likely be able to delay or resist extradition from the UK. See Gov’t Opp’n at 6-7. And for largely similar reasons, the Court again concludes that the proposed conditions do not meaningfully diminish the Court’s concerns regarding the Defendant’s ability to flee and to frustrate or impair any subsequent extradition attempts. The possibility that the Defendant could successfully resist or forestall extradition heightens the Defendant’s incentive to flee.

To summarize, the Defendant’s willingness to renounce her and UK citizenship does not sufficiently assuage the Court’s concerns regarding the risk of flight that the Defendant poses. Considerable uncertainty regarding the enforceability and practical impact of the renunciations cloud whatever relevance they might otherwise have to the Court’s assessment of whether the Defendant poses a risk of flight. See United States v. No. C 10-00547 (SI), 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20,2010). And that same uncertainty—and the possibility that she will be able to successfully resist, or at least delay, extradition—incentivizes flight, particularly because of the Defendant’s substantial international ties.

Nor does the second proposed condition materially alter the Court’s determination that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance. The Defendant proposes to have a retired federal judge provide oversight authority over her financial affairs, and, if granted, he would have the authority to restrain, monitor, and approve disbursement of assets requiring his signature. See Reply at 5. The Court continues to have

concerns about whether the full extent of the Defendant’s assets have been disclosed in light of the lack of transparency when she was first arrested. But the Court assumes, for purposes of resolving this motion, that the financial report that it reviewed in December is accurate and that it accounts for all of the Defendant’s and her spouse’s assets. See Dec. Op. at 16-17.

The monitorship condition does not reasonably assure the Defendant’s future appearance, even when viewed in combination with the rest of the Defendant’s bail package. The Defendant would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to evade prosecution. These include the $450,000 that the Defendant would retain for living expenses and any future salaries for her or her spouse, along with other assets, including jewelry and other chattels, that are potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. See Del Mot. at 5-6; see also Dkt. 97, Ex. Oat 9. While those amounts may be a small percentage of the Defendant’s total assets, they represent a still-substantial amount that could easily facilitate flight. When combined with the Court’s weighing of the § 3142(g) factors and the presumption of detention, the Court concludes that the proposed restraints are insufficient to alter its conclusion that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance.

If the Court could conclude that any set of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant’s future appearance, it would order her release. Yet while her proposed bail package is substantial, it cannot provide such reasonable assurances. As a result, the Court again determines that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of” the Defendant, and it denies her motion for bail on this basis. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX1).

IV. Conclusion

Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s third motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 160, is

DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and propose and justify any redactions to the Defendant’s reply brief by March 24, 2021. If they conclude that redactions are unnecessary, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the unredacted version of the brief by March 24, 2021.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2021 New York, New York

ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUDGE

Date: March 29, 2021

CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT

DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1

NOTICE OF RECORD ON APPEAL FILED

In the above referenced case the document indicated below has been filed in the Court.

Record on Appeal - Certified List

Record on Appeal - CD ROM

Record on Appeal - Paper Documents

_X_ Record on Appeal - Electronic Index

Record on Appeal - Paper Index

Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8577.

From: finnigi20:12.11110.022111114MI To: amosattia Subject: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-A1N USA v. Maxwell Appeal Record Sent to USCA - Electronic He Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 11:31:59 AM

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

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 3/24/2021 at 11:30 AM EDT and filed on 3/24/2021

Case Name: USA v. Maxwell

Case Number: 1;20-sr

Filer:

Document Number: No document attached

Docket Text:

Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: [173] Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)

I :20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been electmak:ails mailed to:

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca jpagliuc4uhmtlaw.cona, nsimmonsk,uhmflaw.com

Laura A. Menninger Imenninger®hmflaw.com, alundberg@hmflaw.com, hrogers@hmflaw.com, nsimmons@hmflaw.com

Bobbi C Stemheim bc@sternheimlaw.com, bcsternheim@mac.com, ecf@stemheimlaw.com

Christian R. Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com, autodocket@cohengresser.com

Mark Stewart mcohen®cohengresser.com, Mark-=-1234@ecipacerpro.com, autodocket®cohengresser.com, managingclerksoffice®cohengresser.com

Lam 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 alexandersossmiller@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:

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cr-00330-AJN All Defendants

Case title: USA v. Maxwell

Date Filed: 06/29/2020

Assigned to: Judge Alison J. Nathan

Appeals court case number: 21-0058 U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circ.

Defendant (1)

Ghislaine Maxwell also known as Sealed Defendant 1

represented by Christian R. Everdell █ & Gresser LLP New York, NY 10022 212-707-7268 Fax: 212-957-4514 Email: ceverdell@cohengresser.com

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Haddon █ and █ Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628 Email: jpagliuca@hmflaw.com

Laura A. Menninger Haddon, █ and █, P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com

Mark Stewart █ █ & Gresser, LLP (NYC) New York, NY 10022 (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212)957-4514 Email: mcohen@cohengresser.com

Bobbi C Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. New York, NY 10007 (212) 243-1100 Fax: (888) 587-4737 Email: bc@sternheimlaw.com

Pending Counts

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

(1)

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

(1s)

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF A MINOT TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

(2)

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

(2s)

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

(3)

18:371.F 18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

(3s)

18:2423.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR FEMALE (TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY)

(4)

18:2423.F TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

(4s)

18:1623.F FALSE DECLARATIONS BEFORE GRAND JURY/COURT (PERJURY)

(5-6)

18:1623.F FALSE DECLARATIONS BEFORE GRAND JURY/COURT (5s-6s)

Highest Offense Level (Terminated)

Complaints

Plaintiff

USA

represented by Alex Rossmiller U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York 1 St. Andrew’s Plaza New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2415 Email: alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov PRO HAC VICE

Alison Gainfort Moe New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2225 Email: alison.moe@usdoj.gov

Maurene Ryan Comey New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2324 Email: maurene.comey@usdoj.gov

Andrew Rohrbach DOJ-USAO 1 St. Andrew’s Plaza New York, NY 10007 212-637-2345 Email: Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov

Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz United States Attorney’s Office One St. Andrew’s Plaza New York, NY 10007 212-637-2343 Fax: 212-637-2527 Email: Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov

Date Filed#Docket Text
06/29/20201SEALED INDICTMENT as to Sealed Defendant 1 (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-6. (jm) (Main Document 1 replaced on 7/2/2020) (jm). (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/20202Order to Unseal Indictment as to Sealed Defendant 1. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. [REDACTED] on 7/2/20)(jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020INDICTMENT UNSEALED as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Case Designated ECF as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Case as to Ghislaine Maxwell ASSIGNED to Judge Alison J. Nathan. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Attorney update in case as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney Alex Rossmiller, Maurene Ryan Comey, Alison Gainfort Moe for USA added. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/20204MOTION to detain defendant . Document filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court - District of New Hampshire. (jm) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/05/20205LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Alex Rossmiller dated July 5, 2020 re: Request to Schedule Initial Appearance Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 07/05/2020)
07/06/20206Rule 5(c)(3) Documents Received as to Ghislaine Maxwell from the United States District Court - District of New Hampshire. (jm) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/06/20207ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. This matter has been assigned to me for all purposes. In its July 5, 2020 letter, the Government on behalf of the parties requested that the Court schedule an arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in this matter in the afternoon of Friday, July 10. See Dkt. No. 5. In light of the COVID public health crisis, there are significant safety issues related to in-court proceedings. If the Defendant is willing to waive her physical presence, this proceeding will be conducted remotely. To that end, defense counsel should confer with the Defendant regarding waiving her physical presence. If the Defendant wishes to waive her physical presence for this proceeding, she and her counsel should sign the attached form in advance of the proceeding if feasible. If this proceeding is to be conducted remotely, there are protocols at the Metropolitan Detention Center that limit the times at which the Defendant could be produced so that she could appear by video. In the next week, the Defendant could be produced by video at either 9:00 a.m. on July 9, 2020 or sometime during the morning of July 14, 2020. Counsel are hereby ordered to meet and confer regarding scheduling for this initial proceeding in light of these constraints. If counsel does anticipate proceeding remotely, by 9:00 p.m. tonight, counsel should file a joint letter proposing a date and time for the proceeding consistent with this scheduling information, as well as a revised briefing schedule for the Defendant’s bail application.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/6/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/06/20208LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] dated July 6, 2020 re: Scheduling ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/07/20209LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/07/2020)
07/07/202010ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. An arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter is hereby scheduled to occur as a remote video/teleconference using an internet platform on July 14, 2020 at 1 p.m. In advance of the conference, [REDACTED] will email counsel with further information on how to access the video conference. To optimize the quality of the video feed, only the Court, the Defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for the Government will appear by video for the proceeding; all others may access the audio of the public proceeding by telephone. Due to the limited

capacity of the internet platform system, only one attorney per party may participate by video. Co-counsel, members of the press, and the public may access the audio feed of the proceeding by calling a dial-in number, which the Court will provide in advance of the proceeding by subsequent order. Given the high degree of public interest in this case, a video feed of the remote proceeding will be available for viewing in the Jury Assembly Room located at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. Due to social distancing requirements, seating will be extremely limited; when capacity is reached no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to arriving at the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Please see the instructions, attached. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. Face coverings that cover the nose and mouth must be worn at all times. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. As discussed in the Court’s previous order, defense counsel shall, if possible, discuss the Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding with the Defendant prior to the proceeding. See Dkt. No. 7. If the Defendant consents, and is able to sign the form (either personally or, in accordance with Standing Order 20-MC-174 of March 27, 2020, by defense counsel), defense counsel shall file the executed form at least 24 hours prior to the proceeding. In the event the Defendant consents, but counsel is unable to obtain or affix the Defendant’s signature on the form, the Court will conduct an inquiry at the outset of the proceeding to determine whether it is appropriate for the Court to add the Defendant’s signature to the form. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), the Government must make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights provided to them in that section. This includes [t]he right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding… involving the crime or of any release… of the accused and “[t]he right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release.” Id. § 3771(a)(2), (4). The Court will inquire with the Government as to the extent of those efforts. So that appropriate logistical arrangements can be made, the Government shall inform the Court by email within 24 hours in advance of the proceeding if any alleged victim wishes to be heard on the question of detention pending trial. Finally, the time between the Defendant’s arrest and July 6, 2020 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act due to the delay involved in transferring the Defendant from another district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). And the Court further excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from today through July 14, 2020. Due to the logistical issues involved in conducting a remote proceeding, the Court finds “that the ends of justice served by [this exclusion] outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The exclusion is also supported by the need for the parties to discuss a potential protective order, which will facilitate the timely production of discovery in a manner protective of the rights of third parties. See Dkt. No. 5. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/7/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/08/202011MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 9 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule. The Defense response is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 10, 2020. The Government reply is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 2020. Additionally, defense counsel is ordered to file notices of appearance on the docket by the end of the day today. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/10/2020. Replies due by 7/13/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/8/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202012NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202013NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202014NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Laura A. Menninger appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
07/08/2020)
07/08/202015MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202017(S1) SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FILED as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) count(s) 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s-6s. (jm) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/09/2020>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 15 MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (aea) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
07/09/202016ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. As discussed in its previous order, the Court will hold an arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter remotely as a video/teleconference on July 14, 2020 at 1 pm. Members of the press and the public in the United States may access the live audio feed of the proceeding by calling 855-268-7844 and using access code 32091812# and PIN 9921299#. Those outside of the United States may access the live audio feed by calling 214-416-0400 and using the same access code and PIN. These phone lines can accommodate approximately 500 callers on a first come, first serve basis. The Court will provide counsel for both sides an additional dial-in number to be used to ensure audio access to the proceeding for non-speaking co-counsel, alleged victims, and any family members of the Defendant. The United States Attorney’s Office should email [REDACTED] with information regarding any alleged victims who are entitled, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(4), to be heard at the bail hearing and who wish to be heard. The Court will then provide information as to the logistics for their dial-in access. As the Court described in a previous order, members of the press and public may watch and listen to the live video feed in the Jury Assembly Room, at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. See Dkt. No. 10. However, in light of COVID-19, seating will be limited to approximately 60 seats in order to enable appropriate social distancing and ensure public safety. Counsel for the Defendant and the Government may contact [REDACTED] by email if there is a request to accommodate alleged victims or family members of the Defendant. Members of the credentialed in-house press corps may contact the District Executive’s Office about seating. Otherwise, all seating will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis and in accordance with the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program and this Court’s previous order of July 7, 2020. See Dkt. No. 10. If conditions change or the Court otherwise concludes that allowing for in-person viewing of the video feed at the courthouse is not consistent with public health, the Court may provide audio access by telephone only. Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/9/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
07/10/202018MEMORANDUM in Opposition by Ghislaine Maxwell re 4 MOTION to detain defendant .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202019NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202020NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202021WAIVER of Personal Appearance at Arraignment and Entry of Plea of Not Guilty by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/13/202022REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 4 MOTION to detain defendant . . (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/13/2020ORDER granting 15 Motion for Jeffrey Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/13/2020) (kwi) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/14/202023ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. For the reasons stated on the record at today’s proceeding, the Governments motion to detain the Defendant pending trial is hereby GRANTED (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/14/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan:Arraignment as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s held on 7/14/2020. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell present by video conference with attorney Mark [REDACTED] present by video conference, AUSA Alison Moe, Alex Rossmiller and Maurene Comey for the government present by video conference, Pretrial Service Officer Lea Harmon present by telephone and Court Reporter Kristine Caraannante. Defendant enters a plea of Not Guilty to the S1 indictment. Trial set for July 12, 2021. See Order. Time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from today until July 12, 2021. Bail is denied. Defendant is remanded. See Transcript. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan: Plea entered by Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s Not Guilty. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/202024Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Arraignment, Bail Hearing, Conference. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/15/202025ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Initial non-electronic discovery, generally to include search warrant applications and subpoena returns, is due by Friday, August 21, 2020. Completion of discovery, to include electronic materials, is due by Monday, November 9, 2020. Motions are due by Monday, December 21, 2020. Motion responses are due by Friday, January 22, 2021. Motion replies are due by Friday, February 5, 2021. Trial is set for Monday, July 12, 2021 ( Discovery due by 8/21/2020., Motions due by 12/21/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/15/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
07/21/202026ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court has received a significant number of letters and messages from non-parties that purport to be related to this case. These submissions are either procedurally improper or irrelevant to the judicial function. Therefore, they will not be considered or docketed. The Court will accord the same treatment to any similar correspondence it receives in the future. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/21/2020) (lnl) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/21/202027LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated July 21, 2020 re: Local Criminal Rule 23.1 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/23/202028ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Defense has moved for an order “prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case.” Dkt. No. 27 at 1. The Court firmly expects that counsel for all involved parties will exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court’s local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the rules of professional responsibility. In light of this clear expectation, the Court does not believe that further action is needed at this time to protect the Defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Accordingly, it denies the Defendant’s motion without prejudice. But the Court warns counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules. The Court will ensure strict compliance with those rules and will ensure that the Defendant’s right to a fair trial will be safeguarded. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/23/2020) (ap) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
07/27/202029LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Protective Order))(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202030AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202031LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to
defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison)
(Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202032MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 31 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020. ENDORSEMENT: The Government’s response to the Defense’s letter is due by 5 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The Defense may file a reply by 5 p.m. on July 29, 2020. Before the Government’s response is filed, the parties must meet and confer by phone regarding this issue, and any response from the Government must contain an affirmation that the parties have done so. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/28/2020. Replies due by 7/29/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/27/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/28/202033LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 28, 2020 re: 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed protective order))(Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/28/202034AFFIDAVIT of Alex Rossmiller by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Rossmiller, Alex)
(Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/29/202035LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 29, 2020 re 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
07/30/202036PROTECTIVE ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell…regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. SO ORDERED:
(Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
07/30/202037MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), “[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.” The good cause standard “requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others… whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant,” and “the public’s interest in the information.” United States v. [REDACTED], 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should “prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials”); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement “relating to” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a

statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded. The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law. In contrast, the Government’s proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the Defense to “reference[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant… to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial.” Dkt. No. 33-1, 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at stake. And as the Government’s letter notes, see Dkt. No. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis. Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense’s papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket. This resolves Dkt. No. 29. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/10/202038LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/10/202039AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/11/202040MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access. ENDORSEMENT: The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s letter motion by Thursday, August 13, 2020. The Defendant’s reply, if any, is due on or before Monday, August 17, 2020. (Responses due by 8/13/2020. Replies due by 8/17/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/11/2020) (ap) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
08/13/202041LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated August 13, 2020 re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
08/17/202042LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 17, 2020 re 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/17/202043LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/18/202044ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion seeking a modification of this Court’s Protective Order, which the Court entered on July 30, 2020. Defendant also moves to file that letter motion under seal. The Governments opposition to Defendant’s letter motion is hereby due Friday, August
21 at 12 p.m. The Defendant’s reply is due on Monday, August 24 at 12 p.m. The parties shall propose redactions to the letter briefing on this issue. Alternatively, the parties shall provide support and argument for why the letter motions should be sealed in their entirety. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 8/21/2020. Replies due by 8/24/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/18/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 08/18/2020)
08/20/202045NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz appearing for USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 08/20/2020)
08/20/202050SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
08/21/202046LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: 43 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/21/202047LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: Proposed redactions to letter briefing, in response to the Court’s Order of August 18, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/24/202048LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Laura A. Menninger dated August 24, 2020 re: Request to File Under Seal: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order and Reply in Support Thereof . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/24/2020)
08/25/202049MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: denying without prejudice 38 LETTER MOTION as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). On August 10, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion related to two issues. Dkt. No. 38. First, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Government to disclose to defense counsel immediately the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment. Second, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to release the Defendant into the general population and to provide her with increased access to the discovery materials. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED without prejudice…[See this Memorandum Opinion And Order]… III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s requests contained in Dkt. No. 38 are DENIED without prejudice. Following the close of discovery, the parties shall meet and confer on an appropriate schedule for pre-trial disclosures, including the disclosure of § 3500 material, exhibit lists, and witness lists, taking into account all relevant factors. The Government is hereby ORDERED to submit written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials and ability to communicate with defense counsel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/25/2020) (bw) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
09/02/202051MEMORANDUMOPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a sealed letter motion seeking an Order modifying the protective order in this case. Specifically, she sought a Court order allowing her to file under seal in certain civil cases (“Civil Cases”) materials (“Documents”) that she received in discovery from the Government in this case. She also sought permission to reference, but not file, other discovery material that the Government produced in this case. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/2/2020)(See MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as set forth) (Inl) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/02/202052LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated 8/17/2020 re: Defense counsel writes with redacted request to modify protective order. (ap) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/04/202055NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 51 Memorandum & Opinion. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number 465401266036. (tp) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
09/08/202053LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020 re: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order. (jbo) (Entered: 09/08/2020)
09/08/202014LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020
09/09/2020Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine
09/09/2020Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
09/10/202056SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/10/202057SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/24/202058SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
10/05/20205.2NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Bobbi C Sternheim appearing for
10/06/202060LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/06/202061 AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene)
10/07/202052MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 5Q Accordingly, the
10/07/202062LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/14/202054LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
10/20/20205,1LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/23/2020fifjLETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S.
10/30/202052LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
I I /05/202068ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: This Order is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of
11/06/202069LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/06/202070AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/09/202071MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 55 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 20-3061-cr. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to consolidate is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 11/09/2020. (nd) (Entered: 11/09/2020)
11/09/202072MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 69 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby extends the deadline for the Government’s production of electronic discovery from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020. The Court also grants the parties’ request for an extension of the motions deadlines as follows: the Defendant’s motions are due by January 11, 2021, the Government’s responses are due by February 12, 2021, and any replies are due by February 19, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Discovery due by 11/23/2020. Motions due by 1/11/2021. Responses due by 2/12/2021. Replies due by 2/19/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/9/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 11/10/2020)
11/18/202073MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 60 Letter filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: The Government respectfully requests that the Court approve the Government’s request to delay disclosure of these Materials…ENDORSEMENT…There is no dispute that the materials referenced in the Government’s letter will be turned over to the defense. The Government has indicated that it will do so. The only dispute, then, relates to the timing of such disclosure. See Dkt. Nos. 64, 65. Because the Government has articulated plausible reasons for some delay of disclosure, see Dkt. No. 65 at 4, the Court grants the Government’s request to delay disclosure. However, the Governments proposal to delay disclosure until 8 weeks in advance of trial is insufficient. In order to ensure that the defense can adequately prepare for trial, the Government shall produce the referenced materials, which are not voluminous, to the defense by March 12, 2021. Disclosure of the materials will of course be subject to the protective order entered by the Court, see Dkt. No. 36. (Government Responses due by 3/12/2021) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/18/20)(jw) (Entered: 11/18/2020)
11/23/202074LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 23, 2020 re: Update Regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/23/2020)
11/24/202075LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
11/24/202076MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 75 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s request that Warden Heriberto Tellez directly address Defendant’s concerns regarding the conditions of her detention. The parties shall jointly submit a status update within one week of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/24/2020) (ap) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
12/01/202077ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter request under seal. On November 30, 2020, she filed a second letter request in which she proposed redactions on both letters. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter request and to the request for proposed redactions by no later than December 2, 2020. The letters shall be
temporarily sealed while the Court resolves the redaction request. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/1/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/01/202078LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/02/202079MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 78 LETTER by USA addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement. ENDORSEMENT: MDC legal counsel shall submit their letter to the Court by December 4, 2020. Upon review of that letter, the Court will determine whether any additional information is required, either orally or in writing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/2/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/02/202080LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 2, 2020 re: Defense Requests for Sealing Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/03/202081ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80. After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government. The Court’s decision is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to ‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the Defendant’s letter motions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forthincluding, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the lettersfavor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons outlined in the Government’s letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant’s forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202082SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202083SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202084SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/04/202085LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 4, 2020 re: Briefing Schedule (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202086LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202087LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/30/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/07/202088LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru and John Wallace dated 12/4/20 re: This letter is written in response to your order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention center in Brooklyn, New York. You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwells confinement and well-being. (jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202089ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 85 Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant’s December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the following schedule: The Defendants submission is due December 8, 2020; The Government’s response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant’s reply is due December 18, 2020. After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. The Court grants the Defendants request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions. Any objections to proposed redactions are due within 24 hours after any brief has been filed. Finally, the Defendant is granted leave to file a motion not to exceed 40 pages. The Governments response shall also be limited to 40 pages. The Defendant’s reply shall not exceed 10 pages ( Defendant submission due by 12/8/2020., Defendant Replies due by 12/18/2020., Government Responses due by 12/16/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/7/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202090ENDORSED LETTER as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] and Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/20 re: On behalf of my client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we plan to file a Renewed Motion for Release on Bail (the “Motion”) and respectfully request an in camera conference, with all counsel present, to address the appropriate procedures for the filing and consideration of the Motion. For the reasons explained below, we intend to request, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(d), that the Court permit the filing of portions of the Motion and certain supporting materials under seal and require that any responsive materials be filed under seal…ENDORSEMENT: The Court sees no basis for the sealing of this letter. On or before December 2, 2020, Defendant shall justify why this letter should be sealed (or redacted). Alternatively, the Defendant may file the letter on the public docket by that date. The Court will take no action on the request pending resolution of the initial sealing question. The Defendant’s letter and this memorandum endorsement will be temporarily sealed pending resolution of the sealing request. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/25/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202091LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 12/07/2020 re: Response to MDC Report to Court re: conditions (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/08/202092ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 4, 2020, the Court received a letter from MDC legal counsel responding to the concerns that the Defendant raised in her November 24, 2020 letter. See Dkt. Nos. 75, 88; see also Dkt. No. 78. The Defendant responded to the MDC legal counsel’s letter on December 7, 2020, reiterating her request that the Court summon Warden Heriberto Tellez to personally respond to questions from the Court regarding the Defendant’s conditions of confinement. See Dkt. No. 91. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, along with the MDC legal counsel’s December 4, 2020 letter, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request to summon the Warden to personally appear and respond to questions. This resolves Dkt. No. 75. Notwithstanding this, as originally provided in Dkt. No. 49, the Government shall continue to submit written status updates detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials, including legal mail and email, and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. The updates shall also include information on the frequency of searches of the Defendant. The Court hereby ORDERS the Government to submit these written updates every 60 days. Furthermore, the Government shall take all
necessary steps to ensure that the Defendant continues to receive adequate access to her legal materials and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/8/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/10/202093TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Conference held on 7/14/2020 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristen Carannante, (212) 805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/31/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/11/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/10/2021. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020)
12/10/202094NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/14/2020 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days… (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020)
12/14/202095ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed her renewed application for bail under seal with proposed redactions, in accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions. After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions. The Court’s decision to adopt those redactions is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) (“Amodeo II”)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that Defendant’s letter motions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,’ thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the redactions are narrowly tailored to properly guard the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the Defendant’s submission and in the corresponding exhibits The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/14/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/14/202096LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 8, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/14/202097MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/17/202098NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Andrew Rohrbach appearing for USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2020)
12/18/202099ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 16, 2020, the Government filed its opposition to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, the Government filed its materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on
those materials. The Defendant did not file any opposition to the Government’s proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Government’s proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to ‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Governments submissions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties’ personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460 467 (S.D.N.Y.2017). The Government is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 18, 2 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/18/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/18/2020100MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell Renewed Bail Motion . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/23/2020101ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government’s opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to ‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant’s submissions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). As with the redactions to her renewed motion for bail, the proposed redactions here are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See also Dkt. No. 95. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020102LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 18, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Reply Memorandum for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020103REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/28/2020104ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for releaseon bail. Dkt No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s
motion. In light of the fact that the Opinion includes potentially confidential information that should not be filed on the public docket, the Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Courts Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuits decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion and Order on the public docket. As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pretrial detention continues to be warranted. On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal. This resolves Dkt No. 97. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/28/2020)
12/30/2020105LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 30, 2020 re: Joint Letter re December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/30/2020106OPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The Court held a lengthy bail hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive briefing and argument at the hearing, the Court concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwells renewed motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 97, is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/31/2020107LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/31/2020)
01/05/2021108MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) on 107 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/5/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/05/2021Set/Reset Deadlines as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Motions due by 1/25/2021. Responses due by 2/26/2021. Replies due by 3/5/2021. (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/08/2021109LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 01/08/2021)
01/11/2021110SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021111SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021112MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) denying 109 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. ENDORSEMENT: The request is denied. Good cause for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal has not been provided. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/11/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021113NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 104 Order. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/11/2021Appeal Remark as to re: 113 Notice of Appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. $505.00 Appeal filing fee due. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 113 Notice of Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 113 Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/13/2021114INTERNET CITATION NOTE as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Material from decision with Internet citation re: 106 Memorandum & Opinion. (sjo) (Entered: 01/13/2021)
01/14/2021115LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 14, 2021 re: Laptop Access (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 01/14/2021)
01/15/2021116MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 115 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 14, 2021 re: Laptop Access. ENDORSEMENT: The unobjected-to request is GRANTED. The Bureau of Prisons is ORDERED to give the Defendant access to the laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/15/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/15/2021USCA Case Number 21-0058 from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circ. as to Ghislaine Maxwell, assigned to 113 Notice of Appeal filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (nd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/15/2021USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505.00, receipt number 465401271727 as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 01/15/2021 re: 113 Notice of Appeal filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (nd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/25/2021117ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On January 25, 2021, the Court received by email the attached letter from the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). In the letter, the BOP requests that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 116, which directed the BOP to give the Defendant access to her Government provided laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. The Defendant and the Government may respond to the BOP’s letter within one week of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/25/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021118LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] dated January 25, 2021 re: Pretrial Motions ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021119MOTION for Separate Trial on Counts Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 5s-6s,5-6 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021120MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 119 MOTION for Separate Trial on Counts Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 5s-6s,5-6 .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021121MOTION to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021122MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 121 MOTION to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021123MOTION to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021124MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 123 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021125MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as it was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021126MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 125 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as it was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment ..
( [REDACTED] , Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/26/2021127ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed twelve pre-trial motions. Because there is a request to redact sensitive or confidential information, several of the motions have been filed under temporary seal. The Government may respond to the Defendant’s proposed redactions within two days of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/26/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/26/2021)
01/28/2021128LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated January 28, 2021 re: Defendant’s Proposed Redactions to Pre-Trial Motions Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 01/28/2021)
02/01/2021129LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated February 1, 2021 re: MDC Laptop Access Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/01/2021)
02/01/2021130LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 02/02/2021 re: Opposition to MDC letter (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/01/2021)
02/02/2021131MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru ( Staff Attorney, MDC Brooklyn, Federal Bureau of Prisons) dated January 25, 2021. ENDORSEMENT: Having considered the request submitted by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 117, as well as the Government’s and the Defendant’s responses, Dkt. Nos. 129, 130, the Court hereby DENIES the BOP’s request to vacate the Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/2/2021)(bw) (Entered: 02/02/2021)
02/04/2021132ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than February 5, 2021. With respect to Motion 3, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the version that includes the Government’s proposed redactions in addition to her own. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/4/2021)(See ORDER as set forth) (lnl) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021133MOTION to Suppress Under the Due Process Clause All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021134MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 133 MOTION to Suppress Under the Due Process Clause All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021135MOTION to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021136MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 135 MOTION to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021137MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021138MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 137 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021139MOTION to Suppress Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021140MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 139 MOTION to Suppress Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six . (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021141MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021142MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 141 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit D (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit E (Sealed), # 6 Exhibit F (Sealed), # 7 Exhibit G (Sealed), # 8 Exhibit H (Sealed))([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021143MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021144MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 143 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021145MOTION to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021146MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 145 MOTION to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021147MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021148MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 147 MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit C (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit D (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit E)([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021149AFFIDAVIT of Bobbi C. Sternheim in Support as to Ghislaine Maxwell re 147 MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures.. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/05/2021150SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021151SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021152SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021153SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021154SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021155SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021156SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021157SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021158LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated February 5, 2021 re: MDC Conditions Update Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/16/2021159LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 02/16/2021 re: Conditions of Pretrial Confinement (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/16/2021)
02/23/2021160THIRD MOTION for Bond . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/23/2021)
02/24/2021161ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On February 23, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a third motion for release on bail. Dkt. No. 160. The Government’s response is due March 9, 2021, and the Defendants reply is due March 16, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 3/9/2021. Replies due by 3/16/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/24/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 02/24/2021)
02/26/2021162LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated February 26, 2021 re: Cover Letter for Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/26/2021)
03/01/2021163LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 1, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Reply to Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/01/2021164MEMO ENDORSEMENT 163 LETTER MOTION To request a 10-day extension of time until Monday, March 15, 2021 to file our reply re: 163 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 1, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Briefing Schedule…ENDORSEMENT…The Defendant’s request is GRANTED. Her reply to the Government’s Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendants Pretrial Motions is now due on March 15, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/1/21) (jw) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/01/2021Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Replies due by 3/15/2021 (jw) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/09/2021165LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated March 9, 2021 re: Opposition to Third Bail Motion Document filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 03/09/2021)
03/15/2021166LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 15, 2021 re: Pretrial Motion Replies (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 03/15/2021)
03/16/2021167LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 03/16/2021 re: Letter regarding Reply to Bail Motion (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 03/16/2021)
03/18/2021168ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On February 26, 2021, the Government filed its omnibus memorandum of law opposing Defendants’ twelve pretrial motions. It filed the brief, along with the corresponding exhibits, under temporary seal pending the Court’s resolution of its request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 162. On March 9, 2021, the Defendant objected to certain of the redactions that the Government had proposed, and she proposed additional redactions. Having considered the parties’ respective positions, the Court will grant the Government’s requests for redactions and sealing, as well as the Defendant’s additional redaction requests, with the exceptions discussed below. Finally, the Court denies the Governments request to file Exhibit 11 entirely under seal. While portions of that transcript have been redacted, other portions are part of the public record. See [REDACTED] v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 1212-1. In light of this, the Court sees no basis to file the transcript entirely under seal rather than by redacting the relevant portions. In light of the above, the Government is hereby ORDERED to either docket on ECF their brief and the corresponding exhibits, consistent with this Order, or to file a letter with the Court justifying more tailored redaction and sealing requests regarding pages 1128 and 187188 and Exhibits 8 and 9 by no later than March 22, 2021. The parties are further ORDERED to meet, confer, and jointly propose redactions to the Defendant’s cover letter objecting to the Government’s proposed redactions by March 22, 2021. Finally, the parties are ORDERED to meet, confer, and propose redactions to Exhibit 11 of the Government’s submission by March 22, 2021 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/18/21)(jw) (Entered: 03/18/2021)
03/22/2021169ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s third motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 160, is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and propose and justify any redactions to the Defendant’s reply brief by March 24, 2021. If they conclude that redactions are unnecessary, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the unredacted version of the brief by March 24, 2021. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/22/2021) (See ORDER set forth) (ap) Modified on 3/23/2021 (ap). (Entered: 03/22/2021)
03/22/2021170LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated March 22, 2021 re: Redactions to Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 03/22/2021)
03/23/2021171REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 160 THIRD MOTION for Bond . . (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 03/23/2021)
03/24/2021172ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On March 5, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submitted to the Court an application for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The proposed subpoena was directed at a law firm that represents alleged victims of the Defendant. As is standard for Rule 17(c) subpoenas, the application was made ex parte and under seal on the ground that it reveals defense strategy…[*** See this Order ***]… Rule 17(c)(3) provides that “[a]fter [an indictment] is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order,” but “before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). Consistent with the Rule, on March 12, 2021, in a sealed ex parte Order, the Court required defense counsel to provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be disclosed by the proposed subpoena. The Court also gave the alleged victims an opportunity to object to or request modifications of the subpoena as required by Rule 17(c)(3). On March 19, 2021, the Court received a letter from the law firm indicating that it can provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be elicited by the subpoena. The law firm shall provide notice to any such alleged victims it represents. In that letter, the law firm also interposed substantial objections on behalf of the law firm and the alleged victims it represents. Those objections are functionally the equivalent of a motion to quash, even though the subpoena has not yet issued. So that the Court can receive adversarial briefing on the proposed subpoena comparable to a motion to quash, the law firm shall enter an appearance and file its objections on the public docket. See United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (“[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied.”). In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues can be narrowed before formal briefing. Moreover, prior to filing, the law firm shall confer with defense counsel as to any proposed, necessary, and tailored redactions to the objections. The law firm’s objections with any proposed redactions shall be filed on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena objections. The law firm may reply within three days of the Defendant’s response.(See Citation 1 on this Order). Counsel shall confer regarding any proposed redactions for all briefing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/24/2021)(bw) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021173NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 169 Order, Terminate Motions. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021Appeal Remark as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 173 Notice of Appeal. $505.00 Appeal Fee Due. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 173 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
03/24/2021174SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021175SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021176SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021)

Short Title: United States v. Maxwell

Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel’s Contact Information is as follows:

Name; Maurene Comey

Docket No.: 21-770

Firm: United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York

Address: One St. Andrew’s Plaza

Telephone: (212) 637-2324

Email: maurene.comey@usdoj.gov

Fax: (212) 637-2387

Appearance for: United States of America/Appellee

Select One:

OSubstitute counsel (replacing lead counsel:

EISubstitute counsel (replacing other counsel-

Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Won S. Shin U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York

Amicus (in support of

CERTIFICATION

Ell am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed

my admission on November 5. 2020 OR

❑I applied for admission on

Signature of Counsel: /S/Maurene Comet’

Type or Print Name: Maurene Comey

Short Title: United States v. Maxwell

Substitute, Additional, or Am icus Counsel’s Contact Information is as follows:

Name: Lam Pomerantz

Docket No.: 21-770

Firm: United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York

Address: One St. Andrew’s Plaza

Telephone: (212) 637-2343

E,rnad;lara.pomerantz@usdoj.gov

Fax:

Appearance for: United States of America/Appellee

Select One:

OSubstitute counsel (replacing lead counsel:

OSubstitute counsel (replacing other counsel-

Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Won S. Shin U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York

Amicus (in support of:

CERTIFICATION

El am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed

my admission on December 3.2020 OR

❑I applied for admission on

Signature of Counsel: /s/ Lara Pomerantz

Type or Print Name: Lara Pomerantz

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON

Date: April 01, 2021

CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT

DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1 CITY)DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1

NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING

On March 30, 2021 the Notice of Appearance as Substitute Counsel, on behalf of the Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell was submitted in the above referenced case. The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court’s Local Rules for the following reason:

  • _____ Failure to submit acknowledgment and notice of appearance (Local Rule 12.3)
  • _____ Failure to file the Record on Appeal (FRAP 10, FRAP 11)
  • _____ Missing motion information statement (T-1080 - Local Rule 27.1)
  • _____ Missing supporting papers for motion (e.g, affidavit/affirmation/declaration) (FRAP 27)
  • _____ Insufficient number of copies (Local Rules: 21.1, 27.1, 30.1, 31.1)
  • _____ Improper proof of service (FRAP 25)
    • _____ Missing proof of service
    • _____ Served to an incorrect address
    • _____ Incomplete service (Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967))
  • _____ Failure to submit document in digital format (Local Rule 25.1)
  • _____ Not Text-Searchable (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2), click here for instructions on how to make PDFs text searchable
  • _____ Failure to file appendix on CD-ROM (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2)
  • _____ Failure to file special appendix (Local Rule 32.1)
  • _____ Defective cover (FRAP 32)
    • _____ Incorrect caption (FRAP 32)
    • _____ Wrong color cover (FRAP 32)
    • _____ Docket number font too small (Local Rule 32.1)
  • _____ Incorrect pagination, click here for instructions on how to paginate PDFs (Local Rule 32.1)
  • _____ Incorrect font (FRAP 32)

Oversized filing (FRAP 27 (motion), FRAP 32 (brief)) Missing Amicus Curiae filing or motion (Local Rule 29.1)

X Other: If Christian R. Everdell wishes to be substituted, counsel must file a motion to be relieved, see Local Rule 4.1(d)(2).

Please cure the defect and resubmit the document, with the required copies if necessary, no later than April 05.2021. The resubmitted documents, if compliant with FRAP and the Local Rules, will be deemed timely filed.

Failure to cure the defect by the date set forth above will result in the document being stricken. An appellant’s failure to cure a defective filing may result in the dismissal of the appeal.

Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8577.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

Date: April 01, 2021 Docket #: 21-58 Short Title: United States of America v. Maxwell

O’HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT

DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY)DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330- 1 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Nathan

NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING

On April 01, 2021 the Notice of Appearance as Additional Counsel, on behalf of the Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell was submitted in the above referenced case. The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court’s Local Rules for the following reason:

Failure to submit acknowledgment and notice of appearance (Local Rule 12.3) Failure to file the Record on Appeal (FRAP 10, FRAP 11) Missing motion information statement (T-1080 - Local Rule 27.1) Missing supporting papers for motion (e.g, affidavit/affirmation/declaration) (FRAP 27) Insufficient number of copies (Local Rules: 21.1, 27.1, 30.1, 31.1) Improper proof of service (FRAP 25) Missing proof of service Served to an incorrect address Incomplete service (Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967)) Failure to submit document in digital format (Local Rule 25.1) X Not Text-Searchable (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2), click here for instructions on how to make PDFs text searchable Failure to file appendix on CD-ROM (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2) Failure to file special appendix (Local Rule 32.1) Defective cover (FRAP 32) Incorrect caption (FRAP 32) Wrong color cover (FRAP 32) Docket number font too small (Local Rule 32.1) Incorrect pagination, click here for instructions on how to paginate PDFs (Local Rule 32.1) Incorrect font (FRAP 32)

Oversized filing (FRAP 27 (motion), FRAP 32 (brief))

Missing Amicus Curiae filing or motion (Local Rule 29.1)

Other:

Please cure the defect and resubmit the document, with the required copies if necessary, no later than April 05, 2021. The resubmitted documents, if compliant with FRAP and the Local Rules, will be deemed timely filed.

Failure to cure the defect by the date set forth above will result in the document being stricken. An appellant’s failure to cure a defective filing may result in the dismissal of the appeal.

Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8577.

Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel’s Contact Information is as follows:

Name: David Oscar Markus

Firm: Markus PLLC

Address: 40 NW Third Street, PH 1, Miami, Florida 33128

Telephone: (305)379-6667

Appearance for: Ghislaine Maxwell

Docket No.: 21-770/21-58

Fax: (305)379-6668

itlect One: Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel: (name/firm)

Substitute counsel (replacing other counsel: (name/firm)

dditional counsel (co-counsel with: Christian R. Everdell, & Gresser LLP (name/firm)

IllAmicus (in support of: (party/designation)

CERTIFICATION

al am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed

my admission on OR

Dapplied for admission on

Signature of Counsel:

Type or Print Name: David Oscar Markus

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

Date: April 01, 2021 Docket #: 21-58 Short Title: United States of America v. Maxwell

O’HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT

DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY)DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330- 1 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Nathan

NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING

On April 01, 2021 the motion for bail, on behalf of the Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, was submitted in the above referenced case. The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court’s Local Rules for the following reason:

Failure to submit acknowledgment and notice of appearance (Local Rule 12.3) Failure to file the Record on Appeal (FRAP 10, FRAP 11) Missing motion information statement (T-1080 - Local Rule 27.1) Missing supporting papers for motion (e.g, affidavit/affirmation/declaration) (FRAP 27) Insufficient number of copies (Local Rules: 21.1, 27.1, 30.1, 31.1) Improper proof of service (FRAP 25) Missing proof of service Served to an incorrect address Incomplete service (Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967)) Failure to submit document in digital format (Local Rule 25.1) X_ Not Text-Searchable (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2), click here for instructions on how to make PDFs text searchable Failure to file appendix on CD-ROM (Local Rule 25.1. Local Rules 25.2) Failure to file special appendix (Local Rule 32.1) Defective cover (FRAP 32) Incorrect caption (FRAP 32) Wrong color cover (FRAP 32) Docket number font too small (Local Rule 32.1) Incorrect pagination, click here for instructions on how to paginate PDFs (Local Rule 32.1) Incorrect font (FRAP 32)

Oversized filing (FRAP 27 (motion), FRAP 32 (brief)) Missing Amicus Curiae filing or motion (Local Rule 29.1)

X Other: ALL PAGES MUST BE TEXT-SEARCHABLE, INCLUDING T•1080 AND EXHIBITS.

Please cure the defect and resubmit the document, with the required copies if necessary, no later than April 05.2021.The resubmitted documents, if compliant with FRAP and the Local Rules, will be deemed timely filed.

Failure to cure the defect by the date set forth above will result in the document being stricken. An appellant’s failure to cure a defective filing may result in the dismissal of the appeal.

inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8577.

Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT

Docket Number(s): 21-770/21-58

Caption [use short title]

Motion for: Pretrial Release

Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:

Ghislaine Maxwell requests that this Court set reasonable bail or in the alternative, remand for an evidentiary hearing.

United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell

MOVING PARTY: Ghislaine Maxwell

OPPOSING PARTY: United States of America

Plaintiff

Defendant

Appellant/Petitioner

Appellee/Respondent

MOVING ATTORNEY: David Oscar Markus

OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Won. S. Shin, AUSA

[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]

Markus/ [redacted] PLLC

United States Attorney’s Office, So. Dist. of NY

40 NW Third Street, PH 1, Miami, FL 33128

1 St. Andrew’s Plaza, New York, New York 10007

(305)379-6667; dmarkus@markuslaw.com

(212)637-2226

Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: Alison J. Nathan, Southern District of New York

Please check appropriate boxes:

Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):

No (explain):

Opposing counsel’s position on motion:

Unopposed

Opposed

Don’t Know

Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:

Don’t Know

FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:

Has this request for relief been made below?

Has this relief been previously sought in this court?

Requested return date and explanation of emergency:

Is oral argument on motion requested?

(requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

Has argument date of appeal been set?

If yes, enter date:

Signature of Moving Attorney:

/s/ David Oscar Markus

Date: 04/01/2021

Service by: CM/ECF

Other [Attach proof of service]

No. 21-770 & 21-58

In the initeb ,*tatrs’ Court of appral5 for the ,rcoiii) Circuit

Appellee,

v.

Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 20-CR-330 (AJN)

Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion for Pretrial Release

David Oscar Markus MARKUSI PLLC 40 N.W. Third Street Penthouse One Miami, Florida 33128 Tel: (305) 379-6667 markuslaw.com

Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion for Pretrial Release

Ghislaine Maxwell has a Constitutional right to be able to prepare effectively for trial. The conditions of her pretrial detention deprive her of that right. For over 280 days, she has been held in the equivalent of solitary confinement, in deteriorating health and mental condition from lack of sleep because she is intentionally awakened every 15 minutes by lights shined directly into her small cell, inadequate food, the constant glare of neon light, and intrusive searches, including having hands forced into her mouth in a squalid facility where COVID has run rampant. The medical literature is unanimous that such conditions produce mental deterioration, which prevents her from effective participation in trial preparation.

Worse, even if Ms. Maxwell were able to be fully alert and mentally acute, she must review over 2,500,000 prosecution pages on a gutted computer, which does not have the ability to search, edit, or print. Because of the pandemic, in-person lawyer visits are risky, so Ms. Maxwell sees her trial lawyers over a video screen, where she can review one page of the discovery at a time that is projected on a wall three feet away.

These conditions would support a complaint for cruel and unusual punishment for a convicted felon. Ms. Maxwell is not one. She is innocent unless and until she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — an event which is highly unlikely given the lack of evidence against her.

Despite the district court’s exhortations regarding the strength of the evidence against Ms. Maxwell, the truth is that the government’s so-called “evidence,” though voluminous, is palpably weak. It consists of anonymous, untested hearsay accusations about events that are alleged to have occurred decades ago, accusations which only surfaced when the government faced public outrage over the inexplicable death of Jeffrey Epstein, while in their custody.

The “Epstein Effect” clouded the judgment of the prosecutors into charging Ms. Maxwell because it needed a scapegoat, the Bureau of Prisons into putting Ms. Maxwell on suicide watch because Epstein died on their watch, the media into an absolute frenzy, and many other fairminded people into viewing Ms. Maxwell as guilty even though no evidence has been presented against her.

Notwithstanding the cries of the mob, Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent and is entitled to defend herself. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell moves this Court for her immediate release. Fed. R. App. P. 9; 18 U.S.C. §§3142 and 3145.

* * *

ISSUES PRESENTED

    1. Whether Ms. Maxwell can effectively prepare her defense where she is being subjected to horrific conditions of detention during a global pandemic, including:
    • not being able to regularly see her lawyers in person to prepare for trial;
    • being kept awake all night to make sure she does not commit suicide even though nothing suggests she is a suicide risk;
    • having her every movement videotaped on multiple cameras focused on her every move;
    • being stuck in de facto solitary confinement without safe, in person visitation;
    • being forced to review millions of pages of documents on a stripped down computer without adequate hardware or software . Maxwell cannot open tens of thousands of pages of discovery and for those she can open, only has the ability to review them one page at a time and cannot search, edit, copy, or print;
    • having no writing surface in her solitary cell; and
    • not consistently provided edible food or drinkable water.
    1. Whether the trial court erred by relying on the government’s proffer
    • which was comprised of nothing but extremely old, anonymous, unconfronted, hearsay accusations — to refuse to set reasonable bail.

FACTS

Ghislaine Maxwell is a 59-year-old, law-abiding United States citizen with no criminal history. In July 2020, she was living peacefully in her New Hampshire home and was in contact, through her attorneys, with the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District New York, which had opened an investigation into her only after the death of Jeffrey Epstein. Instead of asking her to surrender, that office had her arrested by a SWAT team and other unnecessary but intentionally showy tactics. That same day, the acting U.S. Attorney held a press conference with large charts, pausing for pictures for the media,’ before Ms. Maxwell had even appeared in the Southern District of New York.

Since her arrest, Ms. Maxwell has faced nightmarish conditions. See, e.g., Ex.M. Though she is a model prisoner who poses no danger to society and has done literally nothing to prompt “special” treatment, she is kept in isolation — conditions fitting for Hannibal Lecter but not a 59-year old woman who poses no threat to anyone. She is subjected to multiple invasive searches every day. Her every movement is captured on multiple video cameras. She is deprived of any real sleep by having a

{sup}1 The press conference is available online at https://tinyurl.com/bku2av7t

flashlight pointed into her cell every 15 minutes. For months, her food was microwaved with a plastic covering, which rendered it inedible after the plastic melted into the food.2 The water is often cloudy and is not drinkable. Because of the pandemic, it is not safe to meet with her lawyers in person, so she cannot adequately prepare for trial. She is on suicide watch for no reason. She continues to lose weight, her hair, and her ability to concentrate.

It is obvious that the BOP is subjecting Ms. Maxwell to this behavior because of the death of Epstein (and subsequent fallout). But how is this permissible? Since when are the conditions for one inmate dictated by the fate of another? Perhaps never in the history of the U.S. Justice System has the public relations imperatives of the government permitted such wildly inappropriate and unconstitutional treatment of an innocent human being. It is impossible for Ms. Maxwell to participate effectively in the preparation of her defense under these conditions.

The charges related to three of the anonymous accusers in the operative indictment are 25 years old, alleging actions from 1994-1997,

{sup}2 The prison has now promised to heat the food properly.

while the just added accuser involves allegations from 2001-04.3 That the indictment exists at all is a function — solely — of the untimely death of Jeffrey Epstein and the media frenzy that followed. The indictment against Ms. Maxwell was brought only in the search for a scapegoat after the same U.S. Attorney’s Office had to dismiss its case against Epstein because of his death at MCC. If there truly was any case against Ms. Maxwell, she would have been charged with Epstein in the SDNY in 2019. But she was not. She also was not charged — or even named — in the 2008 Epstein case in Florida. She would never be facing charges now if Epstein were alive.

Although there have been a number of orders related to bond in this case, the district court held only one detention hearing. At that hearing the government stated that Ms. Maxwell was a flight risk and that its case was strong. But it did not proffer any actual evidence in support of its contention, or the district court’s conclusion, that the weight of the evidence against Maxwell was strong. Ex.A. Instead, it pointed again and again only to the fact that the grand jury returned an

{sup}3 The government superceded the indictment on March 29, just months before the July trial, adding two counts involving a fourth anonymous accuser.

indictment (which is, of course, true in every criminal case) and to the nature of the charges in the abstract. The district court bought into the government’s conclusory allegations, stating without support that: “Mindful of the presumption of innocence, the Court remains of the view that in light of the proffered strength and nature of the Government’s case, the weight of the evidence supports detention.” (emphasis added).

The court fundamentally erred in relying on the government’s empty assertions that its case is strong. There was no principled way for the court to reach such a conclusion without hearing any evidence and without knowing anything at all about the allegations, especially here where the case is so old and based on anonymous hearsay which the defense has never been able to confront. The government did not even proffer that these anonymous accusers even made their claims under oath. Prosecutors refuse to disclose their names, their statements, the specifics of their allegations, or anything about them.

This case is anything but strong. Ms. Maxwell should be granted bail or, at the very least, the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to test whether the government’s case even marginally supports detention.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. The arrest and bail applications

Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested on July 2, 2020 and since that date has been detained in jaw-droppingly appalling conditions. The government claims that Ms. Maxwell was Jeffrey Epstein’s “associate” and helped him “groom” minors for sex back in the 1990s and early 2000s. Doc. 187. The indictment does not name these accusers and the government has refused to disclose their names or the specific dates that Ms. Maxwell supposedly did anything criminal.

After her arrest, the government moved for detention. Ex.A. The defense responded. Ex.B. And the government replied. Ex.C. The trial judge held the arraignment and bond hearing over Zoom. Ex.D. The government did not call any of the accusers in the indictment or present any witnesses related to flight, danger, or the strength of its case. The government conceded that it was not asking for detention based on danger to the community. The court ordered Ms. Maxwell detained at the conclusion of the hearing. Ex.D.

The court said it was detaining Ms. Maxwell, in part, because the government proffered that its “witness testimony will be corroborated by significant contemporaneous documentary evidence.” Ex.D at 82. The court also pointed to Ms. Maxwell’s lack of “significant family ties” in the United States, her unclear financial picture, the “circumstances of her arrest,” and that although she is a U.S. citizen, she is also a citizen of France and Britain. Id. at 82-87.

Ms. Maxwell filed a second motion for bail and addressed each of these concerns. Ex.E. For starters, the defense explained that none of anonymous accusers’ testimony of abuse was corroborated and that it all related to Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell. In addition, Ms. Maxwell does have significant ties to the United States, her assets were thoroughly disclosed and vetted, and she is willing to waive extradition. The government responded. Ex.F. The defense replied. Ex.G. The judge again denied bail, relying, for the second time, on the “strong” evidence, even though no evidence was presented to the court to rely on.4

Ms. Maxwell filed a third motion for bail. Ex.I. In this application, she offered to renounce her foreign citizenship and also to have her

{sup}4 Ms. Maxwell filed a notice of appeal from this Order, which is docketed in Case No. 21-58.

assets controlled and monitored by a former federal judge and former U.S. Attorney. She also cited the 12 pretrial motions she filed. “Without prejudicing the merits of any of those pending motions,” the judge again denied Ms. Maxwell’s motion for bail, relying in part on the “proffered strength and nature of the Government’s case,” even though, again, no evidence was actually submitted to or reviewed by the trial court. This appeal follows.

In each of her bail requests and in separate pleadings, Ms. Maxwell has documented the Kafkaesque conditions that she is forced to endure. See, e.g., Ex.M.

B. The pretrial motions

Ms. Maxwell filed 12 substantial pretrial motions. Docs. 119-26; 133-48. These include motions to dismiss for violation of the statute of limitations (Docs. 143-44) and for pre-indictment delay (Docs. 137-38) because the conduct is so old. And to dismiss because the government violated the non-prosecution agreement it reached with Epstein that protected any alleged co-conspirator from prosecution. Does 141-42. The government needed 212 pages to respond to these motions. These

motions are pending and raise significant legal bars to the prosecution of this matter.

C. The proposed bail package

Ghislaine Maxwell has proposed a significant, compelling, and unprecedented bail package, which gives up or puts at risk everything that she has — her British and citizenship, all of her and her spouse’s assets ($22.5 million),5 her family’s livelihood, and the financial security of her closest friends and family (totaling $5 million). A security company, which will monitor and secure Ms. Maxwell at her home, will also post an unprecedented $1 million bond. Ex.E, I.

Ms. Maxwell looks forward to confronting the accusers and clearing her name. She has no intention of fleeing and will be unable to do so if released on bond. This bail package demonstrates these facts in a real way, unlike the government’s claims that the evidence against her is strong. Even though a guarantee of appearance is not necessary, the bail package in this case is as close to a guarantee as one can get. There is no legally permissible basis to deny bail.

{sup}& Her spouse would retain $400,000 for living and other expenses.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The question of whether a bail package will reasonably assure the defendant’s presence is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Horton, 653 F. App’x 46, 47 (2d Cir. 2016). This Court reviews the district court’s purely factual findings for clear error. Id. However, the district court’s ultimate finding “may be subject to plenary review if it rests on a predicate finding which reflects a misperception of a legal rule applicable to the particular factor involved.” Id. at 319-20 (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 1987)). That is, “even if the court’s finding of a historical fact relevant to that factor is not clearly erroneous, [the appellate court] may reverse if the court evinces a misunderstanding of the legal significance of that historical fact and if that misunderstanding infects the court’s ultimate finding.” Shakur, 817 F.2d at 197.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

  • I. Ghislaine Maxwell should be released under §3142(i) because she cannot effectively prepare her defense under the horrific conditions she is facing.

Trying to defend against exceedingly old, anonymous allegations is hard enough. Doing so while in de facto solitary confinement without the real ability to meet with your lawyers face-to-face while being kept up all night and being given inedible food makes it virtually impossible, and violates Ms. Maxwell’s constitutional rights.

Section 3142(i) makes clear that defendants must have the ability to consult with counsel and effectively prepare for their defense. If this is not possible in custody, release is required. United States v. 1:19-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (extraordinary burdens imposed by the coronavirus pandemic, in conjunction with detainee’s right to prepare for his defense, constituted compelling reason to order temporary release from Metropolitan Correction Center). The COVID epidemic is still raging and conditions at MDC are unsafe.6

Ms. Maxwell’s continued detention would be wrong at any point in this nation’s history, even when stealing a loaf of bread was a felony. It is especially unwarranted now. “The hazards of a pandemic are immediate and dire, and still the rights of criminal defendants who are

{sup}6 Just for example, the air is not properly filtered in the small, enclosed attorney visit rooms at MDC and has been described as “a death trap” for lawyers and inmates. Ex.K, n.8. Even though the prison is technically open for legal visits, lawyers are understandably not willing to walk into a viral petri dish.

subject to the weight of federal power are always a special concern of the judiciary.” , 2020 WL 1528120, at *2; United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 65-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (fmding that “the obstacles the current public health crisis poses to the preparation of the Defendant’s defense constitute a compelling reason under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)”); United States u. Weigand, 20-CR-188-1 (JSR), 2020 WL 5887602, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2020) (holding that a wealthy defendant, who the government claimed was a flight risk, would be allowed to obtain his release pending trial during the coronavirus pandemic).

“The right to consult with legal counsel about being released on bond, entering a plea, negotiating and accepting a plea agreement, going to trial, testifying at trial, locating trial witnesses, and other decisions confronting the detained suspect, whose innocence is presumed, is a right inextricably linked to the legitimacy of our criminal justice system.” Fed. Defs. of N.Y. u. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 954 F.3d 118, 134 (2d Cir. 2020); see also United States u. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987) (“In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.’).

In United States v. Clark, 448 F. Supp. 3d 1152, 1155 (D. Kan. 2020), the court emphasized that “[m]ost courts addressing a motion for temporary release under §3142(i) have done so in the context of evaluating the necessity of the defendant assisting with preparing his or her defense … This extends to the current COVID-19 pandemic [because of] the pandemic’s impact on counsel’s difficulties communicating with the defendant.” See, e.g., Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d at 65-67 (finding “the obstacles the current public health crisis poses to the preparation of the Defendant’s defense constitute a compelling reason under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)”); United States v. Robertson, 17-Cr-2949, Doc. 306 (D.N.M. February 6, 2021).7

The defendant in Robertson was charged with “frightening allegations” involving a shooting. He had previously violated bond. And he had a criminal record involving guns and drugs. But the court ordered him released because of his inability to prepare for trial while in custody during the pandemic:

Mr. Robertson’s release is necessary for the preparation of his trial defense under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). That section allows a judicial

{sup}7 The 10th Circuit has stayed the Robertson order while it considers the government’s appeal.

officer who issued an order of detention to, by subsequent order, “permit the temporary release of the person … to the extent that the judicial officer determines such release to be necessary for preparation of the person’s defense or for another compelling reason.” § 3142(i).

The presumption of innocence should not be paid mere lip service, the court held, and being held without the ability to see counsel face-to-face was “no way to prepare for trial.”

Ms. Maxwell presents a more compelling case than Robertson for temporary release under § 3142(i). Courts considering whether pretrial release is necessary have considered: “(1) [the] time and opportunity the defendant has to prepare for the trial and to participate in his defense; (2) the complexity of the case and volume of information; and (3) expense and inconvenience associated with preparing while incarcerated.” Robertson, (citing United States u. Boatwright, 2020 WL 1639855, at *4 (D. Nev. Apr. 2, 2020) (unreported) (citations omitted).

Trial is set for July. There is precious little time left to prepare and participate in that preparation. The discovery involves millions of pages of documents. Ms. Maxwell cannot conduct searches of these documents; she cannot print them and spread them out on a desk for review; she cannot make notes on the documents; and she cannot move

the files around into a different order. She is stuck looking at one page at a time over a screen three feet away without a lawyer in the same room. These are textbook untenable conditions. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d at 67 (explaining the importance of legal visits and ordering bail during pandemic); Weigand, 2020 WL 5887602, at *2 (ordering bail during pandemic because defendant needed ability to review the discovery in complex, document-heavy case). This is no way to prepare for a trial where the government will be asking for a sentence that will imprison her for the rest of her life. Ex.A

This Court has recognized that, after a relatively short time, pretrial detention turns into prohibited, unconstitutional punishment. United States u. 823 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir. 1987) (“grave due process concerns” are implicated by a seven-month period of pretrial detention); United States u. Melendez-Carrions, 790 F.2d 984, 1008 (2d Cir. 1986) (Feinberg, J. concurring) (“[G]eneral requirements of due process compel us to draw the line [of permissible pretrial detention] well short of 0 eight months.”). Under the current conditions, it can hardly be disputed that Ms. Maxwell is being punished, which in itself requires relief. Add to that the barriers she is facing to preparing her defense and this Court should order her release under 3142(i).

II. The trial court erred in relying on the government’s proffer—which comprised nothing but old, anonymous, unconfronted, hearsay accusations—to refuse to set reasonable bail for Ghislaine Maxwell.

The government stressed the strength of its case in seeking detention, highlighting the “strength of the Government’s evidence” on page 1 of its application for detention. Ex.A. For support, the government made the circular argument that the evidence is strong because of “the facts set forth in the Indictment.” Id. at 5. It made the same argument in the reply. Ex.0 at 4 (arguing the case is strong because “the superseding indictment makes plain” the allegations against Ms. Maxwell).

Of course, the Indictment is not evidence. See United States v. Giampino, 680 F.2d 898, 901 n. 3 (2d. Cir. 1982). Every circuit with published pattern instructions inform juries that they are not to consider the indictment as evidence. See, e.g., Third Circuit (“An indictment is simply a description of the charge(s) against a defendant. It is an accusation only. An indictment is not evidence of anything, and you should not give any weight to the fact that (name) has been indicted in making your decision in this case.”); Fifth Circuit: (“The indictment … is only an accusation, nothing more. It is not proof of guilt or anything else. The defendant therefore starts out with a clean slate.”); Sixth Circuit: (“The indictment … does not even raise any suspicion of guilt.”).

The government did not provide one single document to the court to back up its claims that the accusers’ allegations about events from 1994-97 were truthful. The government has refused to disclose even the names of these accusers. Contrary to its assertions to the lower court, its allegations are not corroborated. Ex.E at 30-33 (“[T]he discovery contains not a single contemporaneous email, text message, phone record, diary entry, police report, or recording that implicates Ms. Maxwell in the 1994-1997 conduct underlying the conspiracy charged in the indictment.”).

The government only made these allegations after Epstein’s inexplicable death at MCC. Ms. Maxwell was not named in Epstein’s indictment as a defendant or a co-conspirator. She was charged as a substitute for Epstein. Reverse engineering a charge many years later because of the main target’s death is not the makings of a strong case.

Recognizing this weakness, the Government relies on the statutory maximum penalty to argue that the case is serious and that Ms. Maxwell poses a risk of flight. But the statutory maximum is hardly relevant to determine risk of flight. In the vast majority of federal cases, the statutory maximum penalties are sky-high and are not reflective of the real potential penalties. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1658(b) (statutory maximum of life imprisonment for turning off a light in a lighthouse to expose a ship to danger).

Even if there were evidence to back up the four anonymous accusers, the Second Circuit “require[s] more than evidence of the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potential long sentence to support a finding of risk of flight.” United States u. 837 F.2d 48, 49-50 (2d. Cir. 1988) (district court’s finding that defendant posed a risk of flight was clearly erroneous, despite potential for “long sentence of incarceration”); Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 65, 76-77 (reversing detention order where defendants agreed to significant physical and financial restrictions, despite the fact that they faced a “lengthy term of incarceration”).

This is why defendants charged under the same statute in the Southern District of New York are regularly granted bond. United States v. Hussain, 18-mj-08262-UA (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2018) (defendant charged with 18 U.S.C. 2422 violations granted $100,000 personal recognizance bond with home detention, electronic monitoring, and other conditions); United States v. Buser, 17-mj-07599-UA (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2017) (defendant charged with 18 U.S.C. 2422 and 2423 violations granted $100,000 personal recognizance bond, secured by $10,000 cash, with electronic monitoring and other conditions); United States u. Acosta, 16-mj-08569-UA (S.D.N.Y Mar. 29, 2016) (denying the Government’s detention application after argument and granting defendant charged with 18 U.S.C. 2422 violations $100,000 personal recognizance bond with home detention, electronic monitoring, and other conditions); United States v. McFadden, 17-mj-04708-UA (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) (defendant charged with 18 U.S.C. 2422 and 2423 violations granted $250,000 personal recognizance bond, secured by property, with home detention, electronic monitoring and other conditions).

The government shotguns manufactured assertions in support of the supposed flight risk. First, the ridiculous contention that she was hiding before her arrest. In fact, she was living in, and arrested in, her own home in New Hampshire. She was in touch with her lawyers and as the government has to concede, her lawyers were communicating with the government. Ex.D at 27. Despite plenty of opportunities, she had not left the United States since Epstein’s arrest, and had been living in the United States for 30 years. She became a U.S. citizen. She lived and worked here for 30 years. The government knew exactly where she was. (FBI New York Assistant Director William Sweeney Jr.: “We’d been discretely keeping tabs on Maxwell’s whereabouts as we worked this investigation.”)

The fact that she was holed up in her home because she was being relentlessly harassed by the media is not evidence of hiding from the government. In fact, one sensational tabloid put a £10,000 bounty on her. “Wanted: The Sun is offering a £10,000 reward for information on … Ghislaine Maxwell,” The Sun, November 20, 2019, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3vewtnx3. Anyone facing these unprecedented safety concerns from the media mob would try to keep a low profile. But a low

profile is not flight. Ms. Maxwell could have left the United States had she wanted to flee. She did not want to do that and she did not do that. Instead, she chose to stay here and fight the bogus charges against her. This factor weighs heavily in favor of bond.

The government’s next argument is that she has foreign ties and significant assets. But Ms. Maxwell addressed those concerns by renouncing her British and citizenship and by agreeing to have her and her spouse’s assets (other than basic living expenses and legal fees) placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal district judge and former U.S. Attorney who will have authority over them. Ex.I.

Even someone with the government’s imagination can’t conjure up anything else Ms. Maxwell could do to show that she is serious about staying here to fight the allegations against her. She will agree to whatever condition the court orders and she will take the extraordinary step of renouncing her foreign citizenship. The government cannot explain how Ms. Maxwell could flee. She will have no assets (other than living expenses). She will have no country that will protect her. Her family and friends will be at risk. She will be heavily and constantly monitored. And of course, she is recognizable around the globe.

The truth is that wealthy men charged with similar or more serious offenses, many of whom have foreign ties, are routinely granted bail so that they can effectively prepare for trial. Bernie Madoff. Harvey Weinstein. Bill Cosby. John Gotti. Marc Dreier. Dominique Strauss-Kahn. ■ Sadr. Adnan Khashoggi. Mahender Sabhnani. The list goes on and on. In each case, the court set reasonable conditions of bond and the defendants appeared, despite similar arguments by the government that the defendant faced serious charges or that the evidence was strong or that he had foreign ties or that he had great wealth. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to the same opportunity as male defendants to prepare her defense.

Even putting aside the pandemic and the current conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, pretrial detention “is an extraordinary remedy” that should be reserved for only a very “limited group of offenders.” United States v. , 823 F.2d 4, 8 (2d Cir. 1987). For this reason, a judge may deny a defendant bail “only for the strongest of reasons.” Hung v. United States, 439 U.S. 1326, 1329 (1978) (

J.). The Constitution’s “prohibitions on the deprivation of liberty without due process and of excessive bail require careful review of pretrial detention orders to ensure that the statutory mandate [of the Bail Reform Act] has been respected.” United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (Kennedy, J.). Because the consequence of error — the unjust deprivation of liberty from an individual who is presumed innocent — is contrary to our Constitution, “doubts regarding the propriety of release should be resolved in favor of the defendant.” Id.

Even where the government is able to prove that an accused is an actual flight risk, pretrial detention generally remains inappropriate. United States v. Berrios-Berrios, 791 F.2d 246, 251 (2d Cir. 1986) (“the presumption in favor of bail still applies where the defendant is found to be a risk of flight”) (emphasis added). Where the only question is whether the defendant is a risk of flight, “the law still favors pre-trial release subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that the court determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required.” Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75.

The Supreme Court has explained that when “the Government has admitted that its only interest is in preventing flight, bail must be set by a court at a sum designed to ensure that goal, and no more.”

The government simply has not come close to satisfying its heavy burden of proving that “no conditions” exist that will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell’s presence. It has not articulated with any evidence, let alone specific and credible evidence, how Ms. Maxwell could manage to flee under the proposed bail conditions. Speculation is not permitted. United States v. Bodmer, No. 03-cr-947(SAS), 2004 WL 169790 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2004) (where government’s argument that no conditions could assure defendant’s future presence was based, “in large part, on speculation,” defendant was released to home confinement with GPS monitoring). We challenge the government to point to a high profile defendant who in the recent past has 1) fled and 2) gotten away with it.

The reality is that defendants with far greater likelihood of conviction than Ms. Maxwell are granted bond and appear in court. Ms. Maxwell should not be treated differently.

CONCLUSION

Ms. Maxwell faces old, anonymous accusations that have never been tested. In any other case, she would have been released long ago. But because of the “Epstein effect,” she is being detained and in truly unacceptable conditions. All we are asking for is a chance to defend the case. We respectfully request that Ms. Maxwell be released on reasonable conditions of bail or that the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

1VIARKUSa MIX

40 N.W. Third Street

Penthouse One

Miami, Florida 33128

Tel: (305) 379-6667

Fax: (305) 379-6668

markuslaw.com

By: /s/ David Oscar Markus

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I CERTIFY that this petition complies with the type-volume limitation of FED. R. APP. P. 27. According to Microsoft Word, the numbered pages of this petition contains 5,185 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2).

This petition complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 27 because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in Century Schoolbook 14-point font.

/s/ David Oscar Markus David Oscar Markus

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was efiled this 1st day of April, 2021.

/s/ David Oscar Markus David Oscar Markus

No. 21-770 & 21-58

In the Unite *tatrs• Court of Sl(ppeal5 for the Omni) Circuit

Appellee,

v.

Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, (20-CR-330 (AJN)

Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell’s Appendix to the Motion for Pretrial Release

David Oscar Markus MARKUSM PLLC 40 N.W. Third Street Penthouse One Miami, Florida 33128 Tel: (305) 379-6667 markuslaw.com

Appendix

Doc. 4The Government’s Memorandum in Support of DetentionA
Doe. 18Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell In Opposition to the
Government’s Motion for DetentionB
Doc. 22The Government’s Reply Memorandum in Support of
DetentionC
Transcript from Bail Hearing July 14, 2020D
Doc. 97Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her
Renewed Motion for BailE
Doc. 100The Government’s Memorandum in Support to the
Defendant’s Renewed Motion for ReleaseI”
Doc. 103Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of
Her Renewed Motion for BailG
Doc. 106Opinion & OrderH
Doc. 160Memorandum in Support of Ghislaine Maxwell’s Third
Motion for Release on BailI
Doc. 165The Government’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s
Third Motion for Release on BailJ
Doc. 171Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of
Her Third Motion for BailK
Doc. 169OrderL
Doc. 159Ghislaine Maxwell’s Letter Regarding MDC ConditionsM

Doc. 306      United States v. Dashawn Robertson, Case Number 17-cr-02949-MV1, District of New Mexico Memorandum Opinion and Order … N

MARKUS/ [REDACTED] PLLC 40 N.W. Third Street Penthouse One Miami, Florida 33128 Tel: (305) 379-6667 Fax: (305) 379-6668 markuslaw.com

By: /s/ David Oscar Markus

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was e-filed this 1{sup}st day of April, 2021.

/s/ David Oscar Markus David Oscar Markus

Exhibit A

Doc. 4

The Government’s Memorandum in Support of Detention

-----X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

-v.- : 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)

GHISLAINE MAXWELL, :

Defendant. :

-----X

THE GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION

AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Attorney for the United States of America

Alison Moe Alex Rossmiller Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys

  • Of Counsel -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

20 Cr. 330 (AJN)

THE GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION

For the reasons set forth herein, the Government respectfully submits that Ghislaine Maxwell, the defendant, poses an extreme risk of flight; that she will not be able to rebut the statutory presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE); and that the Court should therefore order her detained.

The charges in this case are unquestionably serious: the Indictment alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell, in partnership with Jeffrey Epstein, a serial sexual predator, exploited and abused young girls for years. As a result of her disturbing and callous conduct, Maxwell now faces the very real prospect of serving many years in prison. The strength of the Government’s evidence and the substantial prison term the defendant would face upon conviction all create a strong incentive for the defendant to flee. That risk is only amplified by the defendant’s extensive international ties, her citizenship in two foreign countries, her wealth, and her lack of meaningful ties to the United States. In short, Maxwell has three passports, large sums of money. extensive international connections, and absolutely no reason to stay in the United States and face the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence.

BACKGROUND

On June 29, 2020, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed indictment (the “Indictment”) charging the defendant with one count of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; one count of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 and 2; one count of conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; one count of transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 and 2; and two counts of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.

The charges arise from a scheme to sexually abuse underage girls at Epstein’s properties in New York, Florida, and New Mexico, between approximately 1994 and 1997. During that time, Maxwell had a personal and professional relationship with Epstein and was one of his closest associates.

Beginning in at least 1994, the defendant enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein, through a variety of means and methods. In particular, she played a key role in Epstein’s abuse of minors by helping Epstein to identify, groom, and ultimately abuse underage girls. As a part of their scheme, the defendant and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein’s residences in different states, which the defendant knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.

As the Indictment details, the defendant enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways. For example, she attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, taking them to the movies or on shopping trips, and encouraging their interactions with Epstein. She 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, the defendant would encourage victims to accept Epstein’s offers of financial assistance, including offers to pay for travel or educational expenses. 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 minors.

The Indictment further alleges that the defendant lied under oath to conceal her crimes. In 2016, the defendant gave deposition testimony in connection with a civil lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. During the deposition, the defendant was asked questions about her role in facilitating the abuse of minors. The defendant repeatedly lied under oath when questioned about her conduct with minor girls.

ARGUMENT

I. Applicable Law

Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq.. federal courts are empowered to order a defendant’s detention pending trial upon a determination that the defendant is either a danger to the community or a risk of flight. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). A finding of risk of flight must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d 789, 793 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. MI 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400,405 (2d Cir. 1985). A finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d MO, 542 (2d Cir. 1995); Patriarca, 948 F.2d at 792; Chimurenga, 760 F.2d at 405.

The Bail Reform Act lists four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person’s “character … [and.’ fmancial resources”; and (4) the seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant’s release. See

18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Evidentiary rules do not apply at detention hearings, and the Government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (Government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings).

Where a judicial officer concludes after a hearing that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX1). Additionally, where, as here, a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, it shall be presumed, subject to rebuttal, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3)(E).

II. Discussion

For the reasons set forth below, the defendant presents an extreme risk of flight, and therefore she cannot overcome the statutory presumption in favor of detention in this case. Every one 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.

A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the Strength of the Evidence

The “nature and circumstances” of this offense favor detention. As the Indictment alleges, the defendant committed serious crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(gX1) (specifically enumerating “whether the offense… involves a minor victim” as a factor in bail applications). Indeed, the crimes of enticing and transporting minors for illegal sex acts are so serious that both crimes carry a statutory presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (e)(3)(E). The defendant repeatedly engaged in this conduct, targeting girls as young as 14 years old, for a period of years, and involving multiple minors.

These offenses carry significant penalties, and the defendant faces up to 35 years’ imprisonment if convicted. The possibility of a substantial sentence is a significant thettn in assessing the risk of flight. See United States v. Moscaritolo,No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679, at *2 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) (“LT Jhe steeper the potential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government . .”) (quoting United States v. Alindato-M, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009)). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades in prison. This fact alone would provide a compelling incentive for anyone to flee from prosecution, but the incentive to flee is especially strong for this defendant, who, at age 58, faces the very real prospect of spending a substantial portion of the rest of her life in prison.

The strength of the evidence in this case underscores the risk that the defendant will become a fugitive. As the facts set forth in the Indictment make plain, the evidence in this case is strong. Multiple victims have provided detailed, credible, and corroborated information against the defendant. The victims are backed up contemporaneous documents, records, witness testimony, and other evidence. For example, flight records, diary entries, business records, and other evidence corroborate the victims’ account of events. This will be compelling evidence of guilt at any trial in this case, which weighs heavily in favor of detention.

The passage of time between the defendant’s conduct and these charges does not counsel otherwise. As an initial matter, all of the conduct is timely charged, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which was amended in 2003 to extend the limitations period for conduct that was timely as of the date of the amendment,’ to permit a prosecution at any point during the lifetime of the minor victim. See United States v. Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 922-25 (9th Cir. 2006) (fording that because Congress extended the statute of limitations for sex offenses involving minors during the time the previous statute was still running, the extension was permissible); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (same). Moreover, while the conduct alleged in the Indictment may have occurred years ago, the risk of a significant term of incarceration — and thus the motive to flee — is of course only very recent.

Each of these factors — the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of the evidence, and the possibility of lengthy incarceration — creates an extraordinary incentive to flee. And as further described below, the defendant has the means and money to do so.

B. The Characteristics of the Defendant

The history and characteristics of the defendant also strongly support detention. As an initial matter, the defendant’s extensive international ties would make it exceptionally easy for her to !lee and live abroad. The defendant was born in France and raised in the United Kingdom, where she attended school. Although she became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 2002, she also remains a citizen of the United Kingdom and France. Travel records from United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) reflect that she has engaged in frequent international travel, including at least fifteen international flights in the last three years to locations including the United Kingdom, Japan, and Qatar. In addition, CBP records reflect that, consistent with her citizenship status, the defendant appears to possess passports from the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.

Prior to the amendment, the statute of limitations for sexual offenses involving minors ran until the victim reached the age of 25, and as such, all of the relevant charges in the Indictment remained timely as of the 2003 amendment described above.

In addition, the defendant appears to have access to significant financial resources that would enable her flight from prosecution. Based on the Government’s investigation to date, the Government has identified more than 15 different bank accounts held by or associated with the defendant from 2016 to the present, and during that same period, the total balances of those accounts have ranged from a total of hundreds of thousands of dollars to more than S20 million. During the same period, the defendant engaged in transfers between her accounts of hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time, including at least several such significant transfers as recently as 2019. For example, the defendant transferred $500,000 from one of her accounts to another in March 2019, and transferred more than $300,000 from one of her accounts to another in July 2019. She has also reported, including as recently as 2019, that she holds one or more foreign bank accounts containing more than a million dollars.

The defendant also appears to have reaped substantial income front a 2016 property sale. In particular. in 2016, the defendant appears to have sold a New York City residence for S15 million through a limited liability company. On or about the date of the sale, amounts totaling more than S14 million were then deposited into an account for which the defendant was listed as the owner. Several days later, more than S14 million was transferred from that account into another account opened in the name of the defendant.’ In short, the defendant’s financial resources appear to be substantial, and her numerous accounts and substantial money movements render her total financial picture opaque and indeterminate, even upon a review of bank records available to the Government.

{sup}2 The Government additionally notes that, somewhat further back in time, in transactions occurring between 2007 and 2011, approximately more than S20 million was transferred front accounts associated with Jeffrey Epstein to accounts associated with the defendant, including amounts in the millions of dollars that were then subsequently transferred back to accounts associated with Epstein.

The defendant’s international connections and significant financial means would present a clear risk of flight under normal circumstances, but in this case, the risk of flight is exacerbated by the transient nature of defendant’s current lifestyle. In particular, the defendant has effectively been in hiding for approximately a year, since an indictment against Epstein was unsealed in July 2019. Thereafter, the defendant — who had previously made many public appearances — stopped appearing in public entirely, instead hiding out in locations in New England. Moreover, it appears that she made intentional efforts to avoid detection, including moving locations at least twice, switching her primary phone number (which she registered under the name “G Max”) and email address, and ordering packages for delivery with a different person listed on the shipping label. Most recently, the defendant appears to have been hiding on a 156-acre property acquired in an all-cash purchase in December 2019 (through a carefully anonymized LLC) in Bradford, New Hampshire, an area to which she has no other known connections.

The defendant appears to have no ties that would motivate her to remain in the United States. She has no children, does not reside with any immediate family members, and does not appear to have any employment that would require her to remain in the United States. Nor does she appear to have any permanent ties to any particular location in the United States. As such, the Government respectfully submits that the defendant will not be able to meet her burden of overcoming the presumption of detention, because there are no bail conditions that could reasonably assure the defendant’s continued appearance in this case.

In particular, home confinement with electronic monitoring would be inadequate to mitigate the high risk that the defendant would flee, as she could easily remove a monitoring device. At best, home confinement with electronic monitoring would merely reduce her head start should she decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at 4’1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant’s application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring “at best … limits a fleeing defendant’s head start”); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at 4’3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same); see also United States v. Casteneda, No. 18 Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. 384 F. Supp. 2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same).

CONCLUSION

As set forth above, the defendant is an extreme risk of flight. The Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot meet her burden of overcoming the statutory presumption in favor of detention. There are no conditions of bail that would assure the defendant’s presence in court proceedings in this case. Accordingly, any application for bail should be denied.

Dated: New York, New York July 2, 2020

AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney

By: Alison Moe Alex Rossmiller Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2225

Exhibit B

Doc. 18

Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell In Opposition to the Government’s Motion for Detention

: v.

20 Cr. 330 (AJN)

MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR DETENTION

Mark S. [REDACTED] Christian R. Everdell [REDACTED] & GRESSER LLP New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice admission pending) Laura A. Menninger HADDON, [REDACTED] & FORMAN P.C. Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364

Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT …1
ARGUMENT …5
I. The Conditions Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Mandate the Release of
Ms. Maxwell. …5
II. The Government Has Not Carried Its Burden Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. …9
A. Applicable Law …9
■ ■ Maxwell Has Rebutted the Presumption That She Poses a Flight
Risk, and the Government Has Not Carried Its Burden That No
Combination of Conditions Can Be Imposed To Reasonably Assure Her
Presence In Court …11
1. Ms. Maxwell’s Personal History and Characteristics
Demonstrate That She Is Not a Flight Risk …12
2. The Nature and Circumstances of the Charges and the Weight of
the Evidence Militate in Favor of Bail …17
3. The Proposed Bail Package Is More Than Adequate to Secure
Ms. Maxwell’s Presence …20
CONCLUSION …22

TABLE OF Al1THORITIEj

Cases Hung v. United States,Page(s)
439 U.S. 1326 (1978) … … … United States v. Abdellatif El Mokadem,16
No. 19-CR-646 (AJN), 2020 WL 3440515 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2020) United States v. Alindato-M,17
627 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.P.R. 2009) … … … United States v. Bodmer,18
No. 03-cr-947(SAS), 2004 WL 169790 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28. 2004) United States v. Boustani,16
932 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Carrillo-Villa,20
United States v. 19-CR-867 (PAC), United States v. Conway, United States v. Crowell,
No. 06-CR-29 I E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) United States v. Deutsch,11
No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020) United States v. DiGiacomo,11, 18
746 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Mass. 1990) … … United States v. Dominguez,14
783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 1986) United States v. Dreier,10
596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) United States v. English,21
629 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2011)10, 11
United States v. Epstein,
425 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)17
United States v.
309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)21
United States v.
837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988) United States v. Hansen,13, 18
108 F. App’x 331 (6th Cir. 2004) United States v. Hanson,16
613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009) United States v. Karni,16
298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004) United States v. Kashoggi,16
717 F. Supp. 1048 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) United States v. Mattis,16
No. 20-1713, 2020 WL 3536277 (2d Cir. June 30, 2020) United States v. Moscaritolo,10
No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) United States v. Sabhnani,18
493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) United States v. Salerno,9, 10, 16, 18
481 U.S. 739 (1987) United States v. Stephens, 15-CR-95 (MN),9
2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) United States v. Peres,5, 6, 7, 8
No. 3:20-CR-18-J-32JBT, 2020 WL 1042051 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020) United States v. IM-Bethea,18
No. 18-CR-78 (MN), 2020 WL 2848098 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2020) Statutes6
18 U.S.C. § 3142passim

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Opposition to the government’s July 2, 2020 Memorandum in Support of Detention (“Gov. Mem.”).

It is difficult to recall a recent case that has garnered more public attention than the government’s prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”). In July 2019, Epstein was indicted for offenses relating to sexual misconduct, amid overwhelming media attention focused on the nature of the charges and Epstein’s wealth and lifestyle. On August 10, 2019, Epstein died in federal custody, and the media focus quickly shifted to our client—wrongly trying to substitute her for Epstein—even though she’d had no contact with Epstein for more than a decade, had never been charged with a crime or been found liable in any civil litigation, and has always denied any allegations of claimed misconduct. Many of these stories and online posts were threatening and harassing to our client and those close to her.

But sometimes the simplest point is the most critical one: Ghislaine Maxwell is not Jeffrey Epstein. She was not named in the government’s indictment of Epstein in 2019, despite the fact that the government has been investigating this case for years. Instead, the current indictment is based on allegations of conduct that allegedly occurred roughly twenty-five years ago. Ms. Maxwell vigorously denies the charges, intends to fight them, and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Far from “hiding,” she has lived in the United States since 1991, has litigated civil cases arising from her supposed ties to Epstein, and has not left the country even once since Epstein’s arrest a year ago, even though she was aware of the pending, and highly publicized, criminal investigation. She should be treated like any other defendant who comes before this Court, including as to bail. Under the Bail Reform Act, case law in this Circuit and other circuits, as well as decisions of this Court, Ms. Maxwell should be released on bail, subject to the strict conditions proposed below.

Background. Ms. Maxwell, 58, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who has resided in the United States since 1991. She is also a citizen of France, where she was born, and of the United Kingdom, where she was educated and spent her childhood and formative years. Ms. Maxwell graduated from Oxford University. She moved to the United States in 1991, and has lived in this country ever since that time. Ms. Maxwell has maintained extremely close relationships with her six siblings and her nephews and nieces. They all stood by her in the aftermath of the July 2019 indictment of Epstein and continue to stand by her now. She is especially close to two of her sisters and their children, all of whom reside in the United States. Ms. Maxwell also has numerous friends in the United States who themselves have children, and she is a godmother to many of them. Ms. Maxwell’s family and friends have remained committed to her because they do not believe the allegations against her, which do not match the person they have known for decades.

The Government’s Position. The government has the burden of persuasion in showing that detention is warranted, and that there are no conditions or combination of conditions that will secure a defendant’s appearance in court. In seeking to carry this burden, the government relies on the presumption of detention in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE), and argues that Ms. Maxwell poses a flight risk because she supposedly lacks ties to the United States; is a citizen of the United Kingdom and France, as well as a citizen of the United States, and has passports for each country; has traveled internationally in the past; and has financial means. And echoing recent media stories, the government speculates that Ms. Maxwell was “hiding” from law enforcement during the pendency of the investigation, even though she has been in regular contact with the government, through counsel, since Epstein’s arrest. Finally, the government argues that the nature and circumstances of the offense and the weight of the evidence warrant

detention. Importantly, in contrast with the bail position it took with Epstein, the government does not and cannot assert that Ms. Maxwell presents a danger to the community under Section 3142(g)(4).

Ms. Maxwell’s Response. The Court should exercise its discretion to grant bail to Ms. Maxwell, on the strict conditions proposed below (or as modified by the Court), for two compelling reasons.

First, the COVID-19 crisis and its impact on detained defendants warrants release. As this Court has noted, the COVID-19 pandemic represents an unprecedented health risk to incarcerated individuals, and COVID-19-related restrictions on attorney communications with pretrial detainees significantly impair a defendant’s ability to prepare her defense. Simply put, under these circumstances, if Ms. Maxwell continues to be detained, her health will be at serious risk and she will not be able to receive a fair trial. (See infra Section I, pages 5 to 9).

Second, the Court should grant bail because the government has not met its burden under the Bail Reform Act and controlling case law. The presumption relied on by the government may be rebutted, and is so here. Ms. Maxwell has strong ties to the community: she is a U.S. citizen and has lived in this country for almost 30 years; she ran a non-profit company based in the United States until the recent media frenzy about this case forced her to wind it down to protect her professional colleagues and their organizations; and she has very close ties with family members and friends in New York and the rest of the country. Nor does her conduct indicate that she is a flight risk: she has no prior criminal record; has spent years contesting civil litigation arising from her supposed ties to Epstein; and has remained in the United States from the time of Epstein’s arrest until the present, with her counsel in regular contact with the government. She did not flee, but rather left the public eye, for the entirely understandable

purpose of protecting herself and those close to her from the crush of media and online attention and its very real harms—those close to her have suffered the loss of jobs, work opportunities, and reputational damage simply for knowing her. The government’s remaining arguments about Ms. Maxwell’s passports, citizenship, travel and financial means— also fail because they would require that every defendant with multiple citizenship and financial means be denied bail, which is simply not the law. Finally, as discussed below, the government’s position regarding the nature and circumstances of the offense and weight of its evidence, which relates to alleged conduct that is roughly twenty-five years old, is not persuasive and does not alter the bail analysis. (See infra Section II, pages 9 to 21).

Proposed Bail Conditions. In light of the above, we propose the following bail conditions, which are consistent with those that courts in this Circuit have imposed in analogous situations: (i) a $5 million personal recognizance bond, co-signed by six financially responsible people, all of whom have strong ties to Ms. Maxwell, and secured by real property in the United Kingdom worth over $3.75 million: (ii) travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; (iii) surrender of all travel documents with no new applications; (iv) strict supervision by Pretrial Services; (v) home confinement at a residence in the Southern District of New York with electronic GPS monitoring; (vi) visitors limited to Ms. Maxwell’s immediate family, close friends and counsel; (vii) travel limited to Court appearances and to counsel’s office, except upon application to Pretrial Services and the government; and (viii) such other terms as the Court may deem appropriate under Section 3142.

The Bail Reform Act does not discard the presumption of innocence; Ms. Maxwell is entitled to that presumption here, as she is in all aspects of this case See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j) (“Nothing in this section [3142] shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of

innocence.”). The government has failed to meet its burden of establishing that Ms. Maxwell presents an “actual risk of flight” and must be detained under Section 3142. The strict bail conditions outlined above are appropriate under the circumstances and are the “least restrictive” set of conditions that will “reasonably assure” Ms. Maxwell’s appearance in Court, without the health and access to counsel risks inherent in the government’s request that Ms. Maxwell be detained pending trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (c)(1XB). Under the controlling legal standards, Ms. Maxwell should be released on bail.

ARGUMENT

There are two compelling reasons why the Court should order Ms. Maxwell’s release on bail pursuant to the strict conditions she has proposed:

First, Ms. Maxwell will be at significant risk of contracting COVID-19 if she is detained, and she will not be able to meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense due to the restrictions that have been placed on attorney visits and phone calls in light of the pandemic.

Second, the government has failed to carry its burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 that no combination of conditions can be imposed that will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell’s presence in court.

1. Xis. Maxwell, • •

Impact of COVID-19 on the Prison Population. We submit that the conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic compel Ms. Maxwell’s release pursuant to appropriate bail conditions. Four months ago, this Court held in United States v. Stephens, I 5-CR-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020), that COVID-19 is an “unprecedented and extraordinarily dangerous” threat that justifies release on bail. Id. at *2. In that case, the defendant, who had no underlying medical conditions, filed an emergency motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

prior detention order based in part on the risks brought on by COVID-19. At the time, COVID-19 had only begun to take its devastating toll on New York, and there was no known outbreak in the prison population. Nevertheless, the Court noted that “inmates may be at a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 should an outbreak develop,” and, based in part on this changed circumstance, ordered the defendant released. Id.

Since the Court issued its opinion in Stephens, the COVID- 19 risks to inmates have increased dramatically, as there have been significant outbreaks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities. In the last month alone, the number of prison inmates known to have COVID- 19 has doubled to 68,000, and prison deaths tied to COVID-I9 have increased by 73 percent.’ Indeed, as of July 2, 2020, nine of the ten largest known clusters of the coronavirus in the United States are in federal prisons and county jails.2 As this Court noted last month, “the ‘inability [of] individuals to socially distance, shared communal spaces, and limited access to hygiene products’ [in correctional facilities] make community spread all but unavoidable.” United States v. Bethea, No. 18-CR-78 (AJN), 2020 WL 2848098, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The risks are further enhanced by the possibility of a second wave of coronavirus cases.3

In particular, COVID-I9 has begun to spread through the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), where Ms. Maxwell has been housed since the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) transferred her there on July 6, 2020. According to the MDC’s statistics, as of April 3, 2020, two inmates and

{sup}' Timothy et al., Coronavirus Cases Rise Sharply in Prisons Even as They Plateau Nationwide, N.Y. Times, available at httos://worw.nvtimes.com/2020/06/ I Wuskoronavirus-inmates-orisons-iails.html (last updated June 30, 2020).

{sup}2 Corona virus in the LIS: Latest Map and Case Count. N.Y. Times, available at https://wvAv.nvtimes.comiinteractive/2020/usieoronavirus-us-cases.html#clusters (last updated July 2, 2020).

{sup}3 See, e.g., Audrey Cher, WHO’s Chief Scientin Says There’s a “Very Real Risk” of a Second Wave of Coronavirus As Economies Reopen, CNBC, June 9, 2020, available at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/who-says-theres-realrisk-of-second-coronavirus-wave-as-economies-reoren.html.

five staff had tested positive; by June 30, 2020, those numbers had risen to 14 and 41, respectively.4 The increased spread among prisons means that the COVID-19 risks that were present in the Stephens case four months ago are far more serious for Ms. Maxwell now and mandate her release.

Impact of COVID-I9 on the Ability to Prepare the Defense. The Stephens opinion provides yet another independent basis that, we submit, requires Ms. Maxwell’s release: if she is detained, her ability to meet with her attorneys and prepare for her defense will be significantly impaired and she will not be able to meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense.

In Stephens, the Court found that this factor required the defendant’s release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), which provides for temporary release based on a determination that such release is “necessary for preparation of the person’s defense.” Stephens, 2020 WL 1295155 at ‘3. The Court noted that the spread of COVID-19 had compelled the BOP to suspend all inperson visits, including legal visits, except as allowed on a case-by-case basis. Id. at *3. That suspension persists to this day.’ In a case such as this, which will require assessing evidence relating to events that occurred approximately twenty-five years ago, including documents and personal recollections, numerous in-person meetings between counsel and Ms. Maxwell will be critical to the preparation of the defense. The recent resurgence of the pandemic calls into question whether these meetings will ever be able to happen in advance of her trial. As in

' See April 3, 2020 Report from the BOP regarding the Metropolitan Detention Center and Metropolitan Correctional Center (“MDC and MCC Report”), available at htips://img.nyed.uscourts.govalles/reports/bop/20200403 BOP Report.pdf• and June 30, 2020 MDC and MCC Report, available at htms://www.nved.uscourts.uovMub/bop/MDC MCC 20200630 071147.pdf.

5 See BOP COVID-I9 Modified Operations Plan, available at httos://www.boThuov/coronavirus/covid19 statusiso.

Stephens, Ms. Maxwell’s inability to meet with her attorneys while this policy is in effect constitutes a “compelling reason” requiring her release. Stephens, 2020 WL 1295155 at *3.6

Even speaking by phone with Ms. Maxwell presents daunting challenges due to COVID-19-related protocols requiring at least 72 hours’ notice to schedule a call, unless it is urgent, in which case counsel can email a request to the MDC. As counsel learned this past week, however, even an urgent call request does not mean the call will take place in the time required. At approximately 5:30 p.m. on July 6, 2020, the Court ordered us to confer with Ms. Maxwell about waiving her physical presence at the arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing, and ordered counsel for both sides to jointly report back by 9:00 p.m. that night with a proposed date and time for these proceedings. We promptly emailed the MDC to request an urgent call, making specific reference to the Court’s Order, but were not connected with Ms. Maxwell until 9:00 p.m. There will no doubt be other orders of the Court with no guarantees we will be able to reach our client in time if she is detained.’ In addition, during this past week, Ms. Maxwell has not been able to physically review documents and has had limited access to writing materials. The prohibition on in-person visits means we must read to her any documents requiring her review, and she has virtually no ability to take notes. The age of the allegations in this case compound these problems. Under the current circumstances, Ms. Maxwell cannot review

6 Since the Court issued its opinion in Stephens, numerous other courts in this District have ordered defendants released on bail, over the government’s objection, due to the pandemic and its impact on the defendant’s ability to prepare for trial. See, e.g., United States v. Carrillo-Villa, 20-M.1-3073 (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020) (releasing undocumented defendant in drug conspiracy case because of inability to meaningfully communicate with lawyer and risk of COVID-19); United States v. Hudson, I9-CR-496 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (releasing defendant in drug conspiracy, loansharking, and extortion case, whose two prior, pre-COVID-19 bail apS were denied, because of inability to prepare for upcoming trial and risk of COVID-19); United States v. I9-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (releasing defendant on felon in possession case, with prior manslaughter conviction, due to inability to prepare for trial due to COVID-19 restrictions).

The government has recently worked with the BOP to set up a standing call between counsel and Ms. Maxwell each morning until the initial appearance to facilitate attorney-client communications. While we greatly appreciate these efforts, they are a short-term patch to a persistent problem that shows no signs of abating. Nor would it be appropriate, on an ongoing basis, for the prosecutors to be involved in and dictate the date and time of our communications with our client in connection with the preparation of our defense.

documents and other evidence from approximately twenty-five years ago and meaningfully assist in the preparation of her defense. These restrictions are additional “compelling reasons” justifying her release. See id.8

1I. The ( ON eminent Has Not ( arried Its Burden Under 18 U.S.C. §3142,

The grave concerns raised by the current COVID-19 crisis notwithstanding, Ms. Maxwell must be released because she has met her limited burden of production showing that she does not pose a flight risk, and the government has entirely failed to demonstrate that no release condition or combination of conditions exist that will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell’s presence in court.

A. Aunlicable Law

As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[i]n our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987). Pretrial detention is appropriate only where “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant].” United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)). The Bail Reform Act provides that a court “shall order the pretrial release” of the defendant (18 U.S.C. § 3142(b)) (emphasis added), but may impose bail conditions if “such release will not reasonably assure the appearance” of the defendant in court. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c). Where conditions are necessary, such release shall be “subject to the least restrictive … set of conditions that [the court] determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(cX1)(B) (emphasis added). Consequently, “[u]nder this statutory scheme, `it is only a limited group of offenders who should be denied bail pending trial.” Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

See also Letter of Sean Hecker to Hon. Margo K. Brodie (July 8, 2020), Federal Defenders of New York. Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Prisons. el al.. No. 19 Civ. 660 (E.D.N.Y.) (Doc. No. 78) (detailing absence of in-person visitation, highly limited VTC and telephone call capacity, and issues pertaining to legal mail and legal documents).

The government bears a dual burden in seeking pre-trial detention. First, the government must show “by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant … presents an actual risk of flight.” Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75 (emphasis added). If the government is able to satisfy this burden, it must then “demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court.” Id.

In determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, the court must consider (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

In this case, unlike in the Epstein case, the government does not contend that Ms. Maxwell poses any danger to the community, and therefore the fourth factor does not apply.

The Bail Reform Act contains a rebuttable presumption, applicable based on certain of the crimes charged here, that no conditions will reasonably assure against flight. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3)(E). In cases where this presumption applies, the “defendant bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that [she] does not pose … a risk of flight.” See United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321, at ■2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011), and “[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a category listed in § 3142(g) can affect the operation” of the presumption. United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Mattis, No. 20-1713,

2020 WL 3536277, at *4-5 (2d Cir. June 30, 2020). Although the presumption “remains a factor to be considered” even after the defendant has met her burden of production, “[a]t all times … the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by … a preponderance of the evidence” that the defendant poses a flight risk that cannot be addressed by any bail conditions. English, 629 F.3d at 319 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020). And regardless of the presence of the presumption or the nature of the charges alleged, “[n]othing in this section [3142] shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of innocence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j); see also United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-29IE(F), 2006 WL 3541736, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) (those charged with crimes involving minors “continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence in setting conditions of release.”).

Maxwell Has Rebutted the Presumption That She Poses a Iliaht Risk. and the Gipeminent lias Not Carried Its Burden That No Combination of Conditions Can Be Imposed To Reasonabh %ssure Her presence In Court.

The government has not carried its burden of establishing that no set of conditions will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell’s appearance in court. As set forth below, Ms. Maxwell’s personal history, her family and other ties to this country, and her conduct prior to her arrest easily rebut the presumption that she presents a risk of flight. For these same reasons, the government cannot establish that the strict bail conditions she proposes, which are consistent with a number of cases in this Circuit in which courts have ordered release, will not “reasonably assure” her presence in court. Accordingly, the Court should order Ms. Maxwell released pursuant to her proposed conditions.

1. Ms. Maxwell’s Personal History and Characteristics Demonstrate That She Is Not a Flight Risk

  • a. Ms. Maxwell Has No Prior Criminal Record, and Has Significant Ties to the United States and the New YorkRegion

Ms. Maxwell’s history and characteristics do not “strongly support detention,” as the government contends (Gov. Mem. at 6), but instead demonstrate that she is firmly rooted in this country and that her appearance can be reasonably assured with appropriate bail conditions. Ms. Maxwell has no criminal record, which includes the approximately twentyfive-year period from the time the conduct alleged in the indictment took place to the present. Ms. Maxwell also has significant ties to the United States. She has lived in this country for almost 30 years and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2002. Ms. Maxwell also has strong family ties to this country. Two of her sisters, who have agreed to co-sign her bond, live in the United States, and they have several children who are U.S.-born citizens. Ms. Maxwell is very close with her sisters and maintains regular contact with them, as well as with her nieces and nephews. Ms. Maxwell also has numerous close friends and professional colleagues who reside in this country. In sum, the United States has been Ms. Maxwell’s home for decades.

I Maxwell Has Actively Litigated Civil Cases in this District and Has Not Left the United States Since Epstein’s 20I9Arrest

Ms. Maxwell has never once attempted to “hide” from the government or her accusers, and has never shown any intent to leave the country. To the contrary, Ms. Maxwell has always vehemently denied that she was involved in illegal or improper conduct related to Epstein, and her conduct has been entirely consistent with someone who fully intends to remain in this country and fight any allegations brought against her. For example, since 2015, and continuing through today, Ms. Maxwell has actively litigated severalcivil

cases related to Epstein in the Southern District of New York and has sat for depositions in those cases. Similarly, throughout the course of the criminal investigation of this case, which has been publicly reported on for nearly a year, Ms. Maxwell has remained in the United States. Indeed, on July 7, 2019, the day after Epstein’s arrest, Ms. Maxwell reached out to the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, through counsel, and maintained regular contact with them right up to the point of her arrest.

The government’s broad assertion that Ms. Maxwell has engaged in “frequent international travel” in the last three years (Gov. Mem. at 6) obscures the critical point: she has not left the country even once since Epstein’s arrest. Ms. Maxwell’s decision to remain in the United States after Epstein’s arrest and subsequent death in August 2019 is particularly significant because any incentive she may have had to flee would have been even more acute at that time. Within days of Epstein’s death, a steady stream of press articles began turning the public’s attention to Ms. Maxwell—wrongly substituting her for Epstein—and speculating that she had become the prime target of the government’s investigation.9 Adding even more fuel to this fire, several of the women claiming to be victims of Epstein’s abuse began publicly calling for her immediate arrest and prosecution. Despite the increasing risk of being criminally charged, and the media firestorm that was redirected toward her after Epstein’s death, and despite having ample opportunity to leave the country, Ms. Maxwell stayed in the United States for almost an entire year until she was arrested. These actions weigh heavily in favor of release. See United States v.

9 See, e.g., Spotlight turns on Jeffrey Epstein’s British socialite fixer’ Ghislaine Maxwell after his suicide - but will she be prosecuted?, Daily Mail (Aug. 10, 2019), lutas://www.dailvmail.co.ukincws/anicle-7344765/Snotlight-turns-Jeffrey-Epsteins-fixer-Ghislaine-Maxwell-suicide.html; Ghislaine Maxwell: the woman accused of helping Jeffrey Epstein groom girls, The Guardian (Aug. 12, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/12/ghislainemaxwell-woman-accused-jeffrey-epstein-groom-girls• British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell in spotlight after Epstein’s apparent suicide, NBC News (Aug. 12, 2019), Imps://www.nbcnews.cominews/us-news/british-socialiteghislaine-maxwell-spotlight-after-epstein-s-apparent-suicide-n 104111 I .

837 F.2d 48, 49-50 (2d Cir. 1988) (overturning district court’s decision that defendant posed a flight risk based in part on the ground that the defendant took “no steps” to flee jurisdiction in three-week period between execution of search warrant at home and arrest); United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176, 1179-80 (D. Mass. 1990) (concluding defendants did not present a flight risk because each of them “for three years knew there was substantial evidence of the likely charges against them and did not attempt to flee before indictment”). 837 F.2d 48, 49-50 (2d Cir. 1988) (overturning district court’s decision that defendant posed a flight risk based in part on the ground that the defendant took “no steps” to flee jurisdiction in three-week period between execution of search warrant at home and arrest); United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176, 1179-80 (D. Mass. 1990) (concluding defendants did not present a flight risk because each of them “for three years knew there was substantial evidence of the likely charges against them and did not attempt to flee before indictment”).

Indeed, the absence of any allegation by the government that Ms. Maxwell was taking steps to leave the country at the time of her arrest is conspicuous. The government has offered no proof that she was making plans to leave the country. In fact, had the government alerted her counsel that she was about to be arrested, we would have arranged for Ms. Maxwell’s prompt, voluntary surrender. Instead, the government arrested Ms. Maxwell without warning on the day before the July 4th holiday, thus ensuring that she would be in federal custody on the one-year anniversary of Epstein’s arrest.

  • c. Ms. Maxwell ‘s Actions to Protect Herself From Intrusive Media Coverage and Death Threats Do Not Demonstrate an Intent to Flee

Furthermore, the steps Ms. Maxwell took to leave the public eye after Epstein’s arrest are not indicative of a risk of flight. The government notes that Ms. Maxwell dropped

out of public view after Epstein’s arrest, which the government seeks to portray as “hiding” from the law. The government further argues that she has taken several steps to avoid detection, including moving residences and switching her phone and email address. (Gov. Mem. at 8). But Ms. Maxwell did not take these steps to hide from law enforcement or evade prosecution. Instead, they were necessary measures that Ms. Maxwell was forced to

take to protect herself, her family members, her friends and colleagues, and their children, from unrelenting and intrusive media coverage, threats, and irreparable reputational harm.

Ever since Epstein’s arrest, Ms. Maxwell has been at the center of a crushing onslaught of press articles, television specials, and social media posts painting her in the most damning light possible and prejudging her guilt. The sheer volume of media reporting mentioning Ms. Maxwell is staggering. Since Epstein’s arrest, she has been mentioned in literally thousands of media publications, news reports, and other online content. The media attention also spawned a carnival-like atmosphere of speculation about her whereabouts. In November 2019, the British tabloid, The Sun, even offered a 10,000 bounty for information about Ms. Maxwell’s location. A headline reminiscent of a West wanted poster read: “WANTED: The Sun is offering a £10,000 reward for information on Jeffrey Epstein pal Ghislaine Maxwell..“10 And in the days leading up to her arrest, there was a deluge of media reports (all untrue) claiming that Ms. Maxwell was hiding out in an apartment in Paris to avoid questioning by the FBI.11 She has seen helicopters flying over her home and reporters hiding in the bushes. Indeed, since Ms. Maxwell’s arrest on July 2, 2020, her counsel has been flooded with hundreds of media inquiries and solicitations from members of the public.

The “open season” declared on Ms. Maxwell after Epstein’s death has come with an even darker cost — she has been the target of alarming physical threats, even death threats, and has had to hire security guards to ensure her safety. The media feeding frenzy, which has only intensified in recent months, has also deeply affected her family and friends. Some of Ms. Maxwell’s closest friends who had nothing whatsoever to do with Epstein have lost their jobs or

10 See htms://www.the-sun.cominews/74018/the-sun-is-offering-a- I 0000-reward-for-information-on-ieffrey-ensteinpal-ghislaine-maxwelV.

" See. e.g. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-8444137/Jeffrey-Epsteins-fugitive-madam-Ghislaine-Maxwell-hiding-luxury-Paris.html.

suffered severe professional and reputational damage simply by being associated with her. Ms. Maxwell therefore did what any responsible person would do — she separated herself from everyone she cares about and removed herself from the public eye in order to keep herself and her friends out of harm’s way.12

Lacking any evidence required under the governing standard that Ms. Maxwell presents an “actual risk of flight,” Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75, the government’s flight risk argument is reduced to the following: Ms. Maxwell is a woman of means who has foreign citizenship and has traveled internationally in the past, and who now faces serious charges. But if that were sufficient, then virtually every defendant with a foreign passport and any meaningful amount of funds would need to be detained as a flight risk. See Hung v. United States 439 U.S. 1326, 1329 (1978) (to detain based on risk of flight, government must show more than “opportunities for flight,” and instead must establish an “inclination on the part of [the defendant] to flee”). That is not what the Bail Reform Act requires. Indeed, courts in this Circuit and elsewhere commonly find that bail conditions can adequately address risk of flight, even where individuals have foreign citizenship and passports or otherwise substantial foreign connections, and financial means. See, e.g., Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 66; United States v. Hansen, 108 F. App’x 331 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009); United States v. Bodmer, No. 03-cr-947(SAS), 2004 WL 169790, at •2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28. 2004); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004); United States v. Kashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).

Finally, the ongoing travel restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic would pose a significant hurdle to Ms. Maxwell’s ability to flee the United States, particularly to

12 The media spotlight has also drawn out people who claim to speak for Ms. Maxwell, and even purport to have had direct communications with her, but who, in fact, have no tics to Ms. Maxwell whatsoever. One such person has even given numerous television interviews on news shows in the United Kingdom.

France and the United Kingdom.13 Notably, two weeks ago, this Court recognized in United States v. Abdellatif El Mokadem, No. I 9-CR-646 (AJN), 2020 WL 3440515 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2020) that “concerns regarding risk of flight are mitigated by the ongoing [COVID-19] pandemic, which has understandably curtailed travel across the country, and, indeed, around the world.” Id. at *1. In that case, despite finding detention to be warranted on two prior occasions, the Court concluded that the government could no longer establish flight risk and ordered the defendant released pending sentencing. Id. (“Taking account of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had not yet reached this country when the Court last considered Defendant’s custody status, the balance now clearly and convincingly tips in Defendant’s favor ”). Consideration of this factor weighs heavily in favor of release on theproposed bail conditions here.

2. The Nature and Circumstances of the Charges and the Weight of the Evidence Militate in Favor of Bail

The Defense Has Rebutted the Presumption Relating to Certain of the Charges. The government relies on the statutory presumption of detention applicable to offenses involving minor victims. (Gov. Mem. at 4-5.) But unlike the position it took with Epstein, the government does not contend that Ms. Maxwell poses any danger to the community, or that she suffers from compulsive or addictive sexual proclivities. See United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, 314-15 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Even according to the indictment, Ms. Maxwell’s alleged participation in offenses involving minors ended in 1997. Here, the only

13 See. e.g., E.U. Formalizes Reopening, Barring Travelers From U.S., N.Y. Times, (June 30, 2020), available at https://wvnv.nytimes.com/2020/06/301world/europeku-reopening-blocks-us-travelers.html (confirming that the European Union will not open its borders to travelers from the United States, and “[t]ravekrs’ country of residence, not their nationality, will be the determining factor for their ability to travel to countries in the European Union”); England Drops Its Quarantine for Most Visitors, but Not Those From the U.S., N.Y. Times (July 3, 2020), available at https://www.nytimcs.com/2020/07/03/world/curopetbritain-quarantinc-us-coronavirus.html (confirming that England will leave mandatory 14-day quarantine restrictions in place for travelers coming from the United States).

applicable presumption relates to risk of flight, and, as noted, Ms. Maxwell has rebutted that presumption based on her ties to the United States, her decision to remain in this country after Epstein’s arrest, and all of the other reasons discussed above. This Court should follow other courts in this Circuit and elsewhere that have found that defendants rebutted the presumption and imposed appropriately strict bail conditions in cases involving alleged offenses against minors. See Deutsch, 2020 WL 3577398, at *5-6; United States v. Veres, No. 3:20-CR-18-J-32JBT, 2020 WL 1042051, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020); Conway, 2011 WL 3421321, at *4-5.

The Impact of the Potential Penalties Is Overstated. The government asserts that detention is warranted because of the potential for a long sentence in this case. (Gov. Mem. at 4-5.) This oversimplifies the governing standard. Although the severity of potential punishment is a relevant consideration, the Second Circuit “require[s] more than evidenceof the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potentially long sentence to support a finding of risk of flight.” 837 F.2d at 49-50 (district court’s finding that defendant posed a risk of flight was clearly erroneous, despite potential for “long sentence of incarceration”); see also Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 65, 76-77 (reversing detention order where defendants agreed to significant physical and financial restrictions, despite the fact that they faced a “lengthy term of incarceration”). Accordingly, the asserted potential for a long sentence does not meet the government’s burden of persuasion.10

14 The government relies on United States v. Alindato-M, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009), cited approvingly by United States v. Moscaritolo, No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679, at •2 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) for the proposition that “[t]he steeper the potential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government Mem. at 5.) But Alindato-= is easily distinguished on its facts from Ms. Maxwell’s case. AlindatoM was a narcotics case that did not involve 20-year old conduct as here, but instead involved a conspiracy that “continu[ed] until the date of the indictment.” 627 F. Supp. 2d at 60-61. The evidence included eleven “clearly incriminating video tapes” and testimony from various cooperating witnesses, and the defendant faced a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. Id. at 61.64. These factors are not present in this case.

Moreover, the government overstates the potential for Ms. Maxwell to spend “decades in prison” if she is convicted. (Gov. Mem. at 5.) In fact, her likely total exposure even if she were convicted on all counts is 10 years, assuming the Court were to follow the traditional practice in this District and impose concurrent sentences. Although a 10-year sentence would be significant, it is a far cry from the government’s forecast, further demonstrating that the government has not met its burden of showing Ms. Maxwell is an actual risk of flight.

The Government’s Case Is Subject to Significant Challenges. In evaluating the strength of the government’s case, we note that Ms. Maxwell intends to mount several legal challenges to the indictment, including that: (i) this prosecution is barred by Epstein’s September 24, 2007 non-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, which covers “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”; (ii) the conspiracy, enticement of minors, and transporting of minors charges are time-barred and otherwise legally flawed; and (iii) the two perjury charges are subject to dismissal on several legal grounds.” In addition, as we understand from the face of the indictment, the government’s case is based primarily on the testimony of three individuals about events that allegedly occurred roughly 25 years ago between 1994 and 1997. It is inherently more difficult to prosecute cases relating to decades-old conduct. These issues further call into question the strength of the government’s case, and provide an independent basis justifying release on bail.

15 The defense is also considering whether the government’s comments in connection with this case conform to Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and whether to seek appropriate relief from the Court.

3. The Proposed Bail Package Is More Than Adequate to Secure Ms. Maxwell’s Presence

For the reasons stated above, the Court should release Ms. Maxwell because the circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic will greatly increase her personal risk and prevent her from meaningfully participating in her defense, and because the government has not carried its burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. We respectfully submit that the proposed bail package represents the “least restrictive” set of conditions that will reasonably ensure Ms. Maxwell’s presence in court. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (c)(1XB).

The package includes six co-signers—Ms. Maxwell’s siblings, relatives and friends—many of whom reside in the United States, and all of whom continue to support her despite the unrelenting media attacks that Ms. Maxwell and they, themselves, have suffered as a result of this case. Each of them has voluntarily agreed to assume responsibility for an extremely large bond amount of $5 million, in order to secure her appearance. The bond is also to be secured by real property in the United Kingdom worth roughly $3.75 million. The package also includes stringent travel and physical restrictions, including surrendering all passports and no new travel applications, travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and home detention with electronic GPS monitoring. Ms. Maxwell, for personal reasons, will continue to need security guards to protect her upon release. Under the circumstances, if the Court requires it, the security guards could report to Pretrial Services.’ 6

1s In United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit curtailed the circumstances under which a court can grant pretrial release to a defendant on the condition that the defendant pays for private armed security guards. Boustani, nevertheless, held that a defendant may be released on such a condition if the defendant “is deemed to be a flight risk primarily because of his wealth. In other words, a defendant may be released on such a condition only where, but for his wealth, he would not have been detained.” Id. (emphasis in original). We submit that a similarly situated defendant who, like Ms. Maxwell, had no prior criminal record, significant tics to the United States, and a demonstrated lack of intent to flee the country, as well as numerous, supportive co-signers, but who did

Ms. Maxwell has a number of other family members and friends who, under normal circumstances, would also co-sign and secure her bond. She is not relying on them in connection with this bail application in an effort to safeguard their privacy and protect them and their families from harm.

The proposed bail conditions are consistent with those approved by courts in this Circuit in other high-profile cases, and should be approved here. See, e.g., United States v. MI, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24, 32 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (alleged leader of Genovese crime family who was charged with racketeering and extortion granted release subject to conditions), aff’d, 749 F. App’x 20 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831, 832 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Marc Dreier, accused of “colossal criminality” and alleged to be a “high flight risk,” granted release subject to conditions); United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Bernie Madoff, charged with “largest Ponzi scheme ever” and alleged to be a “serious risk of flight,” granted release subject to conditions).

not have Ms. Maxwell’s means, would be released on bail conditions. Accordingly, if the Court deems it necessary, it may impose private security guards as a condition of release.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court order her release on bail pursuant to the conditions she has proposed.

Dated: July 10, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark S

Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice admission pending) Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & FORMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364

Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell

Exhibit C

Doc. 22

The Government’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Detention

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

20 Cr. 330 (MN)

GHISLAINE MAXWELL,

Defendant.

x

THE GOVERNMENT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION

AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America

Alison Moe Alex Rossmiller Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

GHISLAINE MAXWELL,

Defendant.

x

20 Cr. 330 (AJN)

THE GOVERNMENT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DETENTION

The Government respectfully submits this reply memorandum in further support of its motion for detention, dated July 2, 2020 (the “Detention Memorandum”) (Dkt 4), and in response to the defendant’s memorandum in opposition (the “Opposition Memorandum”) (Dkt. 18).

The charges against Ghislaine Maxwell arise from her essential role in sexual exploitation that caused deep and lasting harm to vulnerable victims. At the heart of this case are brave women who are victims of serious crimes that demand justice. The defendant’s motion wholly fails to appreciate the driving force behind this case: the defendant’s victims were sexually abused as minors as a direct result of Ghislaine Maxwell’s actions, and they have carried the trauma from these events for their entire adult lives. They deserve to see her brought to justice at a trial.

There will be no trial for the victims if the defendant is afforded the opportunity to flee the jurisdiction, and there is every reason to think that is exactly what she will do if she is released. For the reasons detailed in the Detention Memorandum, and as further discussed below, the defendant poses a clear risk of flight, and no conditions of bail could reasonably assure her continued appearance in this case. Among other concerns: (1) she is a citizen of a country that does not extradite its own citizens; (2) she appears to have access to considerable wealth

domestically and abroad; (3) her finances are completely opaque, as her memorandum pointedly declines to provide the Court with information about her financial resources; and (4) she appears to be skilled at living in hiding. These are glaring red flags, even before the Court considers the gravity of the charges in this case and the serious penalties the defendant faces if convicted at trial.

Instead of attempting to address the risks of releasing a defendant with apparent access to extraordinary financial resources, who has the ability to live beyond the reach of extradition in France, and who has already demonstrated a willingness and ability to live in hiding, the defendant instead proposes a bail package that amounts to little more than an unsecured bond. Among other things, the proposed bail package contemplates the defendant pledging as the sole security a property that is beyond the territory and judicial reach of the United States, and which therefore is of no value as collateral. She proposes six unidentified co-signers, an unknown number of whom even reside in the United States, and none of whose assets are identified. The Court and the Government have no information whatsoever regarding whether these co-signers would be able to able to pay the proposed S5 million bond should the defendant flee — or it’, of equal concern, the co-signers are themselves so wealthy that it would be no financial burden whatsoever to do so. The defendant does not identify what residence she proposes to live at in the Southern District of New York, nor does she identify any meaningful ties to the area. And most importantly, the defendant’s memorandum provides the Court with no information whatsoever about her own finances or her access to the wealth of others, declining to provide the Court the very information that would inform any decision about whether a bond is even meaningful to the defendant — and which the Government submits would reveal the defendant’s financial means to flee and live comfortably abroad for the rest of her life.

Finally, the Government recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic is — and should be — a relevant factor for the Court and the parties in this case. However, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is taking very significant steps to address that concern, and the defendant has offered no reason why she should be treated any differently from the many defendants who are currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) pending trial, including defendants who have medical conditions that place them at heightened risk. Inmates at the MDC are able to assist in their own defense, especially long before trial, through established policies and procedures applicable to every pretrial detainee. This defendant should not be granted the special treatment she requests.

The defendant faces a presumption of detention, she has significant assets and foreign ties, she has demonstrated her ability to evade detection, and the victims of the defendant’s crimes seek her detention. Because there is no set of conditions short of incarceration that can reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance, the Government urges the Court to detain her.

ARGUMENT

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 weigh strongly in favor of detention, and the defendant’s proposed package would do absolutely nothing to mitigate those risks.

I. The Defendant’s Victims Seek Detention

As the Court is aware, 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(aX4). Consistent with that requirement, the Government has been in contact with victims and their counsel in connection with its application for detention. Counsel for one victim has already conveyed to the Government that

their client opposes bail for the defendant, and has asked the Government to convey that view to the Court. The Government also expects that one or more victims will exercise their right to be heard at the July 14, 2020 hearing in this matter, and will urge the Court not to grant bail. More generally, as noted above, the Government is deeply concerned that if the defendant is bailed, the victims will be denied justice in this case. That outcome is unacceptable to both the victims and the Government.

II. The Government’s Case Is Strong

The defendant’s motion argues, in a conclusory fashion, that the Government’s case must be weak because the conduct charged occurred in the 1990s. That argument, which ignores the many specific allegations in the Indictment, could not be more wrong. As the superseding indictment (the “Indictment”) makes plain, multiple victims have provided detailed, credible evidence of the defendant’s criminal conduct. And while that conduct did take place a number of years ago, it is unsurprising that the victims have been unable to forget the defendant’s predatory conduct after all this time, as traumatic childhood experiences often leave indelible marks. The recollections of the victims bear striking resemblances that corroborate each other and provide compelling proof of the defendant’s active participation in a disturbing scheme to groom and sexually abuse minor girls. In addition to compelling victim accounts, as the Government has explained, the victims’ accounts are corroborated by documentary evidence and other witnesses.

In particular, the victims’ accounts are supported by contemporaneous documents and records, such as flight records, diary entries, and business records. The powerful testimony of these victims, who had strikingly similar experiences with Maxwell, together with documentary

evidence and witness testimony, will conclusively establish that the defendant groomed the victims for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.‘

The defendant’s motion alludes to defenses in this case, all of which are legal or procedural in nature, and none of which pass muster, let alone counsel in favor of bail. To begin with, the notion that the defendant is protected from prosecution by the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”) is absurd. That agreement affords her no protection in this District, for at least three reasons. First, the defendant was not a party to that agreement nor named in it as a third-party beneficiary, and the defendant offers no basis to think she would have standing to claim any rights under the NPA. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority for the proposition that an agreement she was not a party to and that does not even identify her by name could possibly be invoked to bar her prosecution. Second, and equally important, the NPA does not bind the Southern District of New York, which was not a party to the agreement. See United Stares v. Annaba, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“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.”)); United Stares v. Prisco, 391 F. App’x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010). This rule applies even when the text of the agreement refers to the signing party as the “Government.” Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672.

Third, and perhaps most important, even assuming the NPA could be read to protect this defendant and bind this Office, which are both legally unsound propositions, the Indictment

Additionally, and beyond the strong evidence set forth in the Indictment, in just the past week, and in response to the charges against the defendant being made public, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office have been in touch with additional individuals who have expressed a willingness to provide information regarding the defendant. The Government is in the process of receiving and reviewing this additional evidence, which has the potential to make the Government’s case even stronger.

charges conduct not covered by the NPA, which was limited by its terms to conduct spanning from 2001 to 2007, a time period that post-dates the conduct charged in the Indictment, and to violations of statutes not charged in this Indictment. In this respect, the Government further notes that the Indictment brought in this District is entirely independent of the prior SDFL investigation, and two of the victims referenced in the Indictment were never approached or interviewed by the SDFL, and had never spoken to law enforcement until they met with our Office in 2019.

Nor is there any force to the defendant’s assertion — without explanation, much less legal authority — that the charges in the Indictment are untimely. As the Government explained in its opening brief, the charges in this case are timely, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which permits the prosecution of crimes involving the sexual abuse of minors at any time during the life of the victim. The defendant’s claim that the Indictment is barred by the statute of limitations has no basis in law. For similar reasons, the Court should not give any weight to the defendant’s bare assertions that the indictment is somehow “legally flawed” in unspecified ways or that the perjury counts are “subject to dismissal” for unspecified reasons. Opposition Memorandum at 19. These conclusory claims are baseless.

III. The Defendant Poses An Extreme Risk of Flight

As the Government detailed in its opening brief, the defendant’s international ties, considerable financial resources, and transient lifestyle all make her a risk of flight. That risk is further exacerbated by the fact that the defendant is a citizen of France, which does not extradite its citizens to the United States pursuant to law. In addition, and as detailed further below, the defendant has not only the motive to flee, but the means to do so swiftly and effectively. The defendant appears to have access to extensive sources of wealth. She does not have a job that would tie her to the United States, much less the Southern District of New York, and she does not

appear to depend on any job — or to have depended on any employment in the past 30 years — for the privileged lifestyle she has maintained for the entirety of that period. The defendant clearly has the means to flee.

More troubling still, the defendant’s conduct at the time of her arrest further underscores the risk of flight she poses. When FBI agents arrived at the defendant’s remote property in New Hampshire on the morning of July 2, 2020, they discovered the property was barred by a locked gate. After breaching the gate. the agents observed an individual who was later determined to be a private security guard. As the agents approached the front door to the main house, they announced themselves as FBI agents and directed the defendant to open the door. Through a window, the agents saw the defendant ignore the direction to open the door and, instead, try to flee to another room in the house, quickly shutting a door behind her. Agents were ultimately forced to breach the door in order to enter the house to arrest the defendant, who was found in an interior room in the house. Moreover, as the agents conducted a security sweep of the house, they also noticed a cell phone wrapped in tin foil on top of a desk, a seemingly misguided effort to evade detection, not by the press or public, which of course would have no ability to trace her phone or intercept her communications, but by law enforcement.

Following the defendant’s arrest, the FBI spoke with the security guard. who informed the agents that the defendant’s brother had hired a security company staffed with former members of the British military to guard the defendant at the New Hampshire property, in rotations. The defendant provided one of the guards with a credit card in the same name as the LLC that had purchased the New Hampshire property in cash. The guard informed the FBI that the defendant had not left the property during his time working there, and that instead, the guard was sent to

make purchases for the property using the credit card. As these facts make plain, there should be no question that the defendant is skilled at living in hiding.

The defendant asks the Court to ignore many of the obvious indicators of a flight risk by arguing that she has lived in hiding because of unwanted press attention. This argument entirely misses the point. First, the defendant’s conduct is clearly relevant to the Court’s assessment of her risk of flight, because it evidences her readiness and ability to live in hiding, and to do so indefinitely. As such, even if her behavior in the last year could be attributed solely to her desire to avoid media attention, that should give the Court serious concerns about what steps she would be willing to take to avoid federal prison. Second, the fact that the defendant took these measures to conceal herself after Epstein was indicted in this District — and after the Government announced that its investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators was ongoing — cannot be ignored. To the contrary, these measures are at least equally consistent with the notion that the defendant also sought to evade detection by law enforcement.

In attempting to sidestep the evidence of her ability and willingness to hide, the defendant points to her decision to remain in the United States for the past year while the Government’s investigation remained ongoing. She claims that because she did not flee the country during an ongoing investigation, she will not do so while under indictment. This argument ignores the world of difference between believing that an investigation is ongoing and being indicted in six counts by a federal grand jury. The defendant now faces the reality of serious charges, supported by significant evidence, and the real prospect of spending many years in prison. The return of the indictment fundamentally alters the defendant’s incentives and heightens the incentive to flee far beyond the theoretical possibility of a charge during an investigation (one the defendant may have wrongly believed would or could not reach her). That is especially so when the defendant has

spent the last two decades without facing consequences for her criminal actions. For years before her arrest in this case, the defendant likely believed she had gotten away with her crimes. That illusion has now been shattered, and she has a host of new reasons to use her considerable resources to flee.

Moreover, the defendant’s willingness to brazenly lie under oath about her conduct, including some of the conduct charged in the Indictment, strongly suggests her true motive has been and remains to avoid being held accountable for her crimes, rather than to avoid the media. As alleged in the Indictment, in 2016, when the defendant was given the opportunity to address her conduct with minors in the context of a civil suit, she lied repeatedly. Those lies are, of course, the subject of two counts of perjury, and they evidence her willingness to flout the law in order to protect herself. The defendant’s lies under oath should give the Court serious pause about trusting this defendant to comply with conditions of bail.

IV. The Defendant’s Ball Proposal Offers No Security For Her Appearance

In its opening memorandum, the Government highlighted the defendant’s extensive means to flee and her opaque finances. In her response, the defendant’s brief provides zero information about her assets in the United States or abroad. The Court should be troubled by this. First, so far as the Government is aware, the defendant has not filled out a financial affidavit, under penalty of perjury, in connection with her application for bail, meaning that the Court has no reliable insight into the magnitude or scope of the defendant’s resources.2 However, what the Court does have are strong indicia that the defendant has access to enormous resources, including the large property she was found on, the private security guard being retained to live with her on that

2 The Government understands from Pretrial Services that the defendant has indicated that she has less than a million dollars in bank accounts. The report has not yet been released. As discussed below, the Court should have serious pause before accepting this unverified information.

property, and the multi-million dollar property in the United Kingdom being offered as collateral. Indeed, it is revealing that the defendant’s memorandum declines to discuss her assets or the assets to which she plainly has access. Without knowing the full scope of the defendant’s financial resources, it would be impossible for the Court to even begin to evaluate whether conditions of bail would mitigate her risk of flight. More importantly, the defendant cannot claim that she has met her significant burden to rebut the presumption of detention in this case when she has failed to provide comprehensive, verified financial information under penalty of perjury.

Although the Government submits that no conditions of bail could reasonably assure the defendant’s continued appearance, the defendant’s proposed bail package offers almost no security whatsoever. The defendant appears to have significant assets, she has extensive foreign ties and is a citizen of a country that does not extradite its citizens to the United States, and she is charged with serious crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors — and yet, she asks the Court to grant her bail secured only by a foreign property, which provides effectively no security at all.

Indeed, it is curious that a defendant who appears to have access to millions of dollars has not offered to post a single dime as collateral for the bond she proposes. Instead, as noted, she offers as security a foreign property, which is effectively meaningless. As a practical matter, the Government has no direct way to proceed against foreign property or sureties through bail forfeiture, because the Government cannot seize a foreign citizen’s assets abroad or sell property in another nation based on a United States bail forfeiture judgment. The Government would be required to attempt to litigate a property dispute in another country, with a lengthy process and an uncertain outcome.

Additionally, the defendant proffers no information about her proposed co-signers other than that they are friends and relatives — in particular, she provides no information about the assets

of those individuals, including where they are based or whether the Government would be able to collect from them. Nor does she provide information sufficient to know whether her proposed co-signers are so wealthy that they would be willing to purchase the defendant’s freedom for $5 million, an entirely too modest sum for a person of the defendant’s means. In any event, as further described below, the defendant appears to have the financial resources to make her cosigners whole if she were to flee.

The defendant’s failure to pledge any liquid assets, or to provide detailed financial information about herself or her proposed co-signers, is particularly jarring because she appears to have access to millions of dollars, principally in foreign accounts. In recent years, the defendant has been associated with multiple accounts with a Swiss bank (the “Swiss Bank”) and multiple accounts with at least one bank headquartered in England (the “English Bank”). In 2018 and 2019, Form 114 (“FBAR”) submissions on behalf of the defendant filed with the United States Treasury Department list accounts at the English Bank with maximum values totaling well over $2 million. In connection with the Swiss Bank, the defendant appears to be the grantor of a trust account (the “Trust Account”) with a balance in June 2020 of more than $4 million. Among other transactions, the defendant appears to have transferred approximately $500,000 in March 2019 from one Swiss Bank account in her name to the Trust Account, and records further reflect a transfer between those same accounts in June 2019 of more than $750,000. The Trustees of the trust account, each of whom may act independently according to relevant Trust Account documents, appear to include both a relative and a close associate of the defendant. Additionally, the defendant was arrested last week at a property in New Hampshire that was purchased for more than $1 million in cash in December 2019. It is unknown whether the defendant purchased the property in cash, or whether she has a wealthy patron who did so on her behalf, but either scenario

should raise concerns about the defendant’s access to financial resources that would enable her to flee.

Moreover, and as set forth in the Detention Memorandum, the defendant has been associated with more than a dozen bank accounts from 2016 to the present, and during that period, the maximum total balances of those accounts have exceeded $20 million. Those accounts engaged in transfers in amounts of hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time, including as recently as 2019. To the extent the defendant now refuses to account for her ownership of or access to vast wealth, it is not because it does not exist — it is because she is attempting to hide it.

The defendant’s proposal of ankle-bracelet monitoring should also be of no comfort to the Court. In particular, a GPS monitoring bracelet is of no persuasion because it is does nothing to prevent the defendant’s flight after it has been removed. At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce her head start should she decide to cut the bracelet and flee. See United States v. Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010) (denying bail to a naturalized citizen who was native to Iran, who was single and childless and who faced a statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment, and noting that electronic monitoring is “hardly foolproof.”), ard, 369 F. App’x 152 (2d Cir. 2010); 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”); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same).

The defendant has no children in the United States, she does not reside with any immediate family members, and while the Government does not dispute that she is close with several of her siblings, as her time in hiding makes clear, she is clearly capable of maintaining those relationships remotely, which of course she could continue to do from abroad. Moreover, she has citizenship in

a country that does not extradite its citizens, has access to untold financial resources, and has every motivation to escape accountability for her appalling crimes. See United States v. Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246, 255 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (“LTJhe combination of Defendant’s alleged deceptive actions, access to substantial financial resources, frequent international travel, complete lack of ties to the United States, and extensive ties to foreign countries without extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight.”) (citing United States v. Zarrab, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2016 WL 3681423, at ‘8 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016)). The defendant’s proposed bail package is essentially nothing more than an unenforceable promise to return to Court. Given the gravity of the charged crimes, the defendant’s substantial resources, her willingness to evade detection, and her lies under oath, the Court should take the proposed bail package for what it is worth: nothing.

V. The COVID-19 Pandemic Does Not Warrant The Defendant’s Release

Finally, the current pandemic is not a reason to release this defendant. Indeed, courts in this district have regularly rejected applications for release based on assertions about the generalized risks of COVID-19. See, e.g., United States v. Paulin, No. 19 Cr. 54 (PGG), 2020 WL 1847914, at ‘6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2020) (Gardephe, J.) (denying bail application by defendant with hypertension, stating that “Lais serious as it is, the outbreak of COVID-19 simply does not override the statutory detention provisions [of the Bail Reform Act.’” (internal quotation omitted)); United States v. Orti:, 19 Cr. 198 (KPF), 2020 WL 2539124, at ‘2 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020) (quoting United States v. Nunez, No. 20 Cr. 239 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2020) (Ramos, J.) (“LB Jecause there is a pandemic does not mean that the jailhouse doors ought to be thrown open”)). Significantly, the defendant has not claimed that she is at a higher risk from COVID-19

than any other inmate at the MDC, and thus she cannot claim any greater need for bail than the many inmates awaiting trial there.;

The virus, of course, presents new and complex challenges for protecting inmates’ health, but the BOP generally, and the MDC specifically, are prepared to handle the risks presented by COVID-19 and other health issues. The MDC’s response to the pandemic was the subject of extensive evidentiary hearings in the context of a civil lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York. See Chums v. Edge, No. 20 Cr. 1590, 2020 WL 3055669 (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2020). In Chum:, the District Court conducted extensive fact gathering about the conditions at the MDC before concluding that “MDC officials have recognized COVID-19 as a serious threat and responded aggressively.” Id. at *1; see also id at 25 (“The MDC’s response to COVID-I9 has been aggressive and has included, among other steps, massively restricting movement within the facility, enhancing sanitation protocols, and creating quarantine and isolation units. And the data though limited—suggests that these measures have been quite effective in containing COVID-19 thus far.”).

Numerous judges in this District have rejected applications for release based on assertions about the hypothetical risks of COVID-19, including multiple cases involving defendants who, unlike this defendant, suffer from underlying health conditions. See, e.g., United States v.= Calugaru, No. 19 Cr. 651, ECF No. 257 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2020) (Swain, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant who was on MDC’s initial high-risk list but subsequently removed following new CDC guidance (see ECF Nos. 239, 242, 257)); United States v. Curry, 19 Cr. 742, ECF No. 37 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020) (Hellerstein, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by

3 The defendant also argues that the circumstances of the pandemic would pose a “significant hurdle” to the defendant’s ability to flee. Opposition Memorandum at 16. The Government submits that the defendant has the means and resources to fmd her way out of the country, and a short quarantine period abroad would be a small price to pay to avoid years in prison.

defendant with asthma); United States v. Medina, 19 Cr. 351, ECF No. 68 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020) (Marrero, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant with diabetes and hypertension); United States e M, No. 19 Cr. 632, ECF No. 34 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020) (Daniels, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant with high blood pressure and obesity (see ECF Nos. 29, 33, 34)); United States v. Va.:calm, No. 20 Cr. 241, 2020 WL 1862631, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020) J.) (denying pre-trial bail application and collecting cases in which bail applications have been denied even where defendants have underlying health conditions); United States v. Iri=ctiy, 17 Cr. 283, 2020 WL 1705424 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2020) (Preska, J.) (denying pie-trial bail application by defendant with asthma and anxiety); United States v. Daniels, 20 Cr. 69, ECF No. 26 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2020) (=, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application (see ECF Nos. 19, 26)); United States v.=, 14 Cr. 139, ECF No. 51 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020) (Preska, J.) (denying pre-VOSR hearing bail application by inmate on MDC highrisk list with asthma (see ECF Nos. 48, 51)); United States v. Conley, No. 19 Cr. 131, ECF No. 366 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (Engelmayer, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant on high-risk list with asthma, partial lung removal, diabetes, high blood pressure, and hypertension (see ECF Nos. 363, 366)); United States v. No. 20 Cr. 135, 2020 WL 1530746 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (Furman, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant with asthma); United States v. Acosta, No. 19 Cr. 848, ECF No. 14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020) (Buchwald, J.) (denying bail application by defendant that relied on general reasons to release inmates because of the spread of the COVID-19 virus). As the foregoing citations make clear, the defendants in many of these cases asserted underlying health conditions that purportedly placed them at heightened risk with respect to COVID-19, but courts nevertheless denied their

applications in view of the applicable factors under the Bail Reform Act. This Court should reach the same conclusion based on the extraordinary risk of flight described in detail above.

The defendant’s argument that bail is required for her to prepare her defense is equally unpersuasive. Judges in this district have repeatedly held that the current restrictions on inmate access to counsel do not warrant releasing defendants who should otherwise be detained under the Bail Reform Act. See United States v. Tolentino, 20 Cr. 007 (DLC), 2020 WL 1862670, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020); United States v. Adamu, 18 Cr. 601 (PGG), 2020 WL 1821717, at *6 (Apr. 10, 2020); United States v.M, 20 Cr. 63 (PGG), 2020 WL 2521458, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2020); United States v. Ellison, 18 Cr. 834 (PAE), 2020 WL 1989301, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27), United States v. Melamed, No. 19 Cr. 443 (LAK), 2020 WL 1644205, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020); United States v. Pena, No. 18 Cr. 640 (RA), 2020 WL 1674007, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020). Just last week, a district judge in the Eastern District of New York denied bail to a defendant who argued that restricted access to his counsel at the MDC required his release, while noting the volume of decisions reaching the same conclusion. United States v. Shipp, No. 19 Cr. 299 (NGG), 2020 WL 3642856, •3-4 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020) (collecting cases).

This Court’s decision in Stephens does not compel a different result here. In that case, this Court concluded that bail was necessary in order to permit the defendant to prepare for a significant hearing, which was scheduled for six days later. United States v. Stephens, No. 15 Cr. 95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (finding that the limitations on the defendant’s access to counsel “impacts the Defendant’s ability to prepare his defenses to the alleged violation of supervised release in advance of the merits hearing scheduled for March 25, 2020.”). By contrast, no evidentiary hearings have been requested, much less scheduled, in this case, and a trial date has not yet been set. See United States v. Gonzalez, No. 19 Cr. 906 (JMF), 2020 WL 1911209,

at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2020) (** 1 fails to demonstrate that temporary release is ‘necessary’ for the preparation of his defense because, among other things, his trial is not scheduled for another five months.”); United States v. Eley, No. 20 Cr. 78 (AT), 2020 WL 1689773, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2020) (“Defendant’s request for release is not compelled under the Sixth Amendment; with trial scheduled for nine months from now, this case is distinguishable from other instances in which an imminent evidentiary hearing may support a defendant’s temporary release.”).

In fact, the defendant’s own motion makes clear that the MDC has been responsive to defense counsel’s concerns and has ensured that they have access to their client. As their motion notes, the MDC provided defense counsel with access to their client within three hours of a request earlier this week, despite having zero notice and receiving the request after close of business in the evening. See Opposition Memorandum at 12. For non-emergencies, defense counsel can avail themselves of the scheduling system that has been instituted at the MDC to request regular calls with their client and will be able to coordinate with MDC legal counsel should an urgent need arise.

CONCLUSION

As set forth above, the defendant is an extreme risk of flight. The Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot meet her burden of overcoming the statutory presumption in favor of detention. There are no conditions of bail that would assure the defendant’s presence in court proceedings in this case. Accordingly, any application for bail should be denied.

Dated: New York, New York July 13, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney

By: Alison Moe Alex Rossmiller Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2225

Exhibit D

Transcript from Bail Hearing July 14, 2020

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x

3

4 v.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

GHISLAINE MAXWELL,

Defendant.

Before:

New York, N.Y.

20 Cr. 330 (AJN)

x Teleconference

Arraignment Bail Hearing

July 14, 2020 3:05 p.m.

HON. ALISON J. NATHAN,

District Judge

APPEARANCES

AUDREY STRAUSS

United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

BY: ALISON J. MOE

MAURENE R. COMEY

ALEXANDER ROSSMILLER

Assistant United States Attorneys

& GRESSER, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

BY: MARK S.

CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL

HADDON & , P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant

BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA

LAURA A. MENNINGER

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Judge Nathan presiding.

This is United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330.

I will take appearances from counsel, beginning with counsel for the defendant.

MS. MOE: Good afternoon, your Honor. Mark & Gresser, for Ms. Maxwell. Also appearing with me today is my partner Chris Everdell of & Gresser and Jeff Pagliuca and Laura Menninger of the Haddon firm. Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr.

And for the government.

MS. MOE: Good afternoon, your Honor. Alison Moe for the government. I’m joined by my colleagues Maurene Comey and Alex Rossmiller. And also, with the court’s permission, we learned that the executive staff for the U.S. Attorney’s office were unfortunately not able to Connecticut at the overflow dial-in so, with the court’s permission, we would like to dial them in from a phone here if that’s acceptable to the court.

THE COURT: The last word, the overflow dial-in was not full. Just a moment and we will make sure that they can connect in.

And let me say good afternoon, Ms. Maxwell, as well.

THE DEFENDANT: Good afternoon, Judge.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: Ms. Maxwell, are you able to hear me and see me okay?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, thank you.

THE COURT: And are you able to hear Mr. and counsel for the United States as well?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. If at any point you have difficulty with any of the technology, you can let someone there know right away, let me know, and we will pause the proceedings before going any further. Okay?

THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: All right.

Just a minute while we check on the call-in line.

MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.

(Pause)

MS. MOE: Your Honor, apologies. We have also heard from colleagues in the office that the line is full. We have, however, been able to dial in the executive staff to a phone number here and my understanding is that they can hear and participate that way, if that’s acceptable to the court. But of course we defer to the court’s preference.

THE COURT: We are concerned about feedback from being on a speakerphone in that room. The phone number for nonspeaking co-counsel that was provided, that line is not full, and I would assume the executive leadership of the office

1 falls within that category, so they may call in to that number.

2 3 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. We will do that.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.

6 7 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Then we will go ahead and proceed.

8 9 10 I have called the case. I have taken appearances. Counsel, let me please have oral confirmation that the court reporter is on the line.

11 12 THE COURT REPORTER: Good afternoon, your Honor. Kristen Carannante.

13 THE COURT: Good afternoon, and thank you so much.

14 15 We also have on the audio line Pretrial Services Officer Leah Harmon and —

16 17 THE PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER: Hello, your Honor. Good afternoon.

18 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you.

19 20 We are here today for the arraignment, the initial scheduling conference, and bail hearing in this matter.

21 22 23 24 25 As everyone knows, we are in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am conducting this proceeding remotely, pursuant to the authority provided by Section 15002 of the CARES Act and the standing orders issued by our Chief Judge pursuant to that act.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I am proceeding by videoconference, which I am accessing remotely. Defense counsel and counsel for the government are appearing remotely via videoconference and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, is accessing this videoconference from the MDC in Brooklyn.

Ms. Maxwell, I did confirm that you could hear me and see me; and, again, if at any point you have any difficulty with the technology, please let me know right away. Okay?

THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honor. I will do that.

THE COURT: Thank you. And if at any point you would like to speak privately with Mr. , let me know that right away, and we will move you and your counsel into a private breakout room where nobody else will be able to see or hear your conversation, okay?

THE DEFENDANT: Again, thank you, your Honor. I appreciate that. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Mr. , likewise, should you request to speak with Ms. Maxwell privately, don’t hesitate to say that.

MR. : Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: We will turn now to the waiver of physical presence. I did receive a signed waiver of physical presence form dated July 10, 2020.

Mr. , could you please is describe the process by

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

which you discussed with Ms. Maxwell her right to be present and the indication of her knowing and voluntary waiver of that right provided on this form.

MR. : Yes, your Honor. We, given the press of time, we were not able to physically get the form to our client, but my partner Chris Everdell and I went through it with her, read it to her, and she gave us authorization to sign on her behalf and that’s reflected on the form in the boxes where indicated, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Maxwell, is that an accurate account of what occurred?

THE DEFENDANT: That is completely accurate, your Honor. Yes.

THE COURT: And you have had the form read to you or you have it physically now at this point?

THE DEFENDANT: That is correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. And you have had time to discuss it with your attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: I have, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. And do you continue to wish to waive your right to be physically present and instead to p

This document was truncated for web display. See the linked source PDF for the complete record.

Discuss on Bluesky

Retrieved from https://epstein-index.org/documents/court-us-v-maxwell-0770-efta02824716/.