Document 20-cr-330

Case#: 20-cr-00830-AJN LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM 212-243-1100 * Main 917-306-6666 * Cell 888-587-4737 * Fax 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternheimlaw.com April 29, 2021 Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: During oral argument of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail appeal before the Circuit, Ms. Maxwell's appellate counsel expressed concern that she was improperly deprived of sleep while detained in the MDC, an issue that has been raised in filings before this Court. In its brief denial of her appeal, the Circuit stated: "To the extent Appellant seeks relief specific to her sleeping conditions, such request should be addressed to the District Court." See Exhibit A. We press our concerns regarding disruption of Ms. Maxwell's sleep and the deleterious effect sleep deprivation is having on her health, well-being, and ability to prepare for and withstand trial. Ms. Maxwell continues to be disrupted throughout the night by guards shining a flash/strobe light into her cell, claiming that her breathing must be checked. The myth that Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement are related to her being a suicide risk was laid to rest during the oral argument: There is nothing to support that contrived claim. In fact, Ms. Maxwell is classified with the standard CC1-Mh designation: inmate with no significant mental health care. (See Dkt. 159 at 3.) Contrary to the report that Ms. Maxwell "wears an eye mask when she sleeps" (Dkt. 196 at 4), an item neither available for purchase through MDC commissary nor provided to her, she resorts to using a sock or towel to cover her eyes in an awkward attempt to shield them from disrupting illumination every 15 minutes. Last night, she was confronted by MDC staff due a visible bruise over her left eye. The "black eye" is depicted in Exhibit B. Despite 24/7 camera surveillance (except when guards elect to exert authority in an intimidating way off-camera, as they did in Saturday's bathroom incident), no guard addressed the bruise until Ms. Maxwell, who has no mirror, caught a reflection of her aching eye in the glean of a nail clipper. At that point, MDC staff confronted Ms. Maxwell regarding the source of the bruise, threatening to place her in the SHU if she did not reveal how she got it. While Ms. Maxwell is unaware of the cause of the bruise, as reported to medical and psych staff, she has grown increasingly reluctant to report information to the guards for fear of retaliation, discipline, and punitive chores. However, there is concern that the bruise may be related to the need for Ms. Maxwell to shield her eyes from the lights projected into her cell throughout the night. DOJ-OGR-00001430 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 193 Mod AO 442 (09/13) Arrest Warrant AUSA Name & Telno: Alison Moe, 212-637-2225 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant ARREST WARRANT To: Any authorized law enforcement officer YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay (name of person to be arrested) Ghislaine Maxwell who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court: Indictment Superseding Indictment Information Superseding Information Complaint Probation Violation Petition Supervised Release Violation Petition Violation Notice Order of the Court This offense is briefly described as follows: Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (conspiracy to entice minors) Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2 (enticement of a minor) Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (conspiracy to transport minors) Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2 (transportation of a minor) Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623 (perjury) Date: 06/29/2020 Issuing officer's signature City and state: White Plains, NY Hon. Lisa Margaret Smith, U.S. Magistrate Judge Printed name and title Return This warrant was received on (date) , and the person was arrested on (date) at (city and state) . Date: Arresting officer's signature Printed name and title DOJ-OGR-00019204 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 10 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, 2 DOJ-OGR-00000948 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document611802 Filed 07/23/21 Page 2 of 9 INTRODUCTION Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Third Motion for Release on Bail. As Ms. Maxwell has stated on numerous occasions and reaffirms here: she has no intention or desire to leave this country. She is an American citizen, has lived in United States for 30 years, has strong family ties and the support of friends and family residing in this country. She wants nothing more than to remain in the United States under whatever conditions the Court deems necessary so that she can effectively prepare for trial and vigorously defend against the 25-year-old charges in the Indictment. Ms. Maxwell has already proposed an expansive and, to our knowledge, unprecedented set of bail conditions that would reasonably assure her appearance. (See Dkt. 97.) In light of the Court's denial of that application (see Dkt. 106), Ms. Maxwell now proposes two additional bail conditions to supplement the extraordinarily restrictive bail package she has already offered. First, Ms. Maxwell will renounce her French and British citizenship to eliminate any opportunity for her to seek refuge in those countries, if the Court so requires. Second, Ms. Maxwell will have her and her spouse's assets—excluding funds earmarked for living expenses, for legal fees and other expenses necessary to defend her against the criminal charges in this case and related civil lawsuits and for taxes—placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal District Court judge and former United States Attorney who will function as asset monitor and will have co-signing authority over the account. The former condition goes well beyond the extradition waivers that the Court deemed insufficient and should satisfy any concerns the Court may have that Ms. Maxwell may try to seek a safe haven in France or the United Kingdom. (See id. at 11-13). As a non-citizen, Ms. Maxwell will not be able to avail herself of any protections against extradition that may apply to 2 DOJ-OGR-00001234 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 1392 Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 12 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 French 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. I. 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 2 DOJ-OGR-00001275 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case#: 20-cr-00830-AJN Document 132 Filed 02/07/21 Page 2 of 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Prisons Metropolitan Detention Center 80 29th Street Brooklyn, New York 11232 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED: 2/2/21 January 25, 2021 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. No. 02879-509 Dear Judge Nathan: This letter is written in response to Order granted on January 15, 2021, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York. The MDC Brooklyn respectfully requests that Your Honor vacate the Order given MDC Brooklyn was not given the opportunity to object to defense counsel's claims, although the objection had been reiterated to the U.S. Attorney's Office numerous times. Defense counsel expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwell's confinement limiting her access to discovery. However, Ms. Maxwell has received a significant amount of time to review her discovery. On November 18, 2020, the Government provided the MDC Brooklyn with a laptop for Ms. Maxwell to use to review discovery. Ms. Maxwell has been and will continue to be permitted to use that laptop to review her discovery for thirteen (13) hours per day, five (5) days per week. In addition to the Government laptop, she has access to the MDC Brooklyn discovery computers. Although defense counsel has indicated that the MDC Brooklyn discovery computers are not equipped to read all of her electronic discovery, the computers are capable of reviewing most of the electronic discovery. Despite defense counsel's claim that Ms. Maxwell's lacks sufficient time to fully review her discovery, her consistent use of Government laptop and MDC Brooklyn's discovery computers undercuts this claim. Moreover, Ms. Maxwell continues to have contact with her legal counsel five (5) days per week, three (3) hours per day via video-teleconference and via telephone; this is far more time than any other MDC inmate is allotted to communicate with their attorneys. ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge 2/2/21 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. DOJ-OGR-00001353 --- PAGE BREAK --- U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 April 6, 2021 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter to provide an update regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") pursuant to the Court's Order dated December 8, 2020. (Dkt. No. 92). This update is based on information provided to the Government by MDC legal counsel regarding the conditions of the defendant's confinement over the last two months. The defendant continues to receive more time to review discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. Specifically, the defendant is permitted to review her discovery thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. During the entirety of that time, the defendant has access to both a desktop computer provided by the MDC and a laptop computer provided by the Government on which to review discovery. Also during those thirteen hours per day, the defendant may use the MDC desktop computer to send and receive emails with her attorneys.1 This discovery review 1 Per BOP policy, all inmate emails are routinely purged every six months. In response to complaints from the defendant and defense counsel regarding prematurely deleted emails, MDC staff examined the defendant's inmate email account. That examination revealed that the defendant had herself deleted some of her emails and had archived others. That examination revealed no evidence to suggest that MDC staff deleted any of the defendant's emails. DOJ-OGR-00001359 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00830-AJN Document 272-2 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 3 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM 212-243-1100 * Main 917-306-6666 * Cell 888-587-4737 * Fax 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternheimlaw.com May 7, 2020 Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: Once again, the government reports second- and third-hand information from the MDC, the reliability of which becomes increasingly questionable. In its May 5th letter regarding the MDC's flashlight security checks of Ms. Maxwell (Dkt. 270), the government contradicts a previous report that Ms. Maxwell "has an eye mask." This allegation, immediately refuted by her counsel, was a focus of the Second Circuit's questioning during oral argument of Ms. Maxwell's bail appeal. Now, the government reports that the MDC cannot provide an eye mask to Ms. Maxwell and that an eye mask is considered contraband. This alone is a basis for the Court to question the veracity of representations made by the MDC. To justify the 15-minute flashlight surveillance that is causing Ms. Maxwell's disruptive sleep and sleep deprivation, the MDC claims that Ms. Maxwell is on "an enhanced security schedule." The reasons given to support the need for "heightened safety and security concerns" with respect to Ms. Maxwell are spurious. They single out Ms. Maxwell to the detriment of other pretrial detainees who face even more serious charges and potential stress (i.e., defendants charged with murder and terrorism offenses subjected to life sentences without possibility of release and the death penalty) and who are incarcerated in cells by themselves. The MDC attempts to shift the focus of its conduct by claiming that it is responsive to Ms. Maxwell's "expressed concern for her safety if she were housed in general population." The MDC should fact check its records before making bold assertions. The Intake Screening Form completed by Ms. Maxwell upon entry to the MDC on July 6, 2020 posed the following question: "Do you know of any reason why you should not be placed in general population?" Ms. Maxwell responded "No." It is the MDC, not the inmate, who makes the determination regarding general population or degree of segregation. The Intake Screening DOJ-OGR-00001438 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 611-2 Filed 02/02/21 Page 4 of 9 1. The Proposed Additional Bail Conditions Will Reasonably Assure Ms. Maxwell's Appearance in Court As set forth above, Ms. Maxwell now proposes two additional restrictions that eliminate any means or opportunity that she may have to leave the country. The Court should therefore reconsider its earlier ruling and grant bail under the proposed conditions. See United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR. 756 LM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) ("[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."); see also United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision"). A. Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship To demonstrate her commitment to abide by her conditions of release and to provide further assurance to the Court that she will not attempt to leave the country, Ms. Maxwell is willing to formally renounce her foreign citizenships in France and the United Kingdom. Should the Court feel this drastic condition is necessary, the required documents will be submitted to the appropriate authorities. Moreover, as a standard condition of bail, all of Ms. Maxwell's passports will be surrendered to the government and no further application will be made. If the Court deems it a necessary condition of release, Ms. Maxwell will formally commence the procedure to renounce her foreign citizenship. The requisite paperwork is in the process of being completed. Renunciation of UK citizenship can be accomplished immediately upon granting of bail. The process of renouncing her French citizenship, while not immediate, may be expedited. Citizenship is a precious and priceless asset. Ms. Maxwell's decision to give up citizenship from the county of her birth and the country of her upbringing demonstrates her 4 DOJ-OGR-00001236 --- PAGE BREAK --- person as required and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(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(f). 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-2041 (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(f)'s statutory text. See, e.g., United States v. Rowe, No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (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"). 4 DOJ-OGR-00001277 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 1392 Filed 03/22/21 Page 5 of 12 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 5 DOJ-OGR-00001278 --- PAGE BREAK --- Cased 20-cr0330 Document 192 Filed 03/24/20 Page 7 of 25 ARGUMENT I. Reconsideration of the Court's Bail Decision is Appropriate Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) A prior determination that a defendant should not be released on bail does not preclude the Court from reconsidering its decision in light of new information. To the contrary, a bail hearing may be reopened . . . at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Courts have relied on § 3142(f) in revisiting bail determinations where the defendant presents material testimony or documentary evidence that was not available to her at the time of the initial hearing, even if the underlying facts might have been within the defendant's knowledge. For example, in United States v. Ward, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999), the court granted the defendant's request to reopen his bail hearing to present evidence of his immediate family's willingness to act as sureties for his release. Id. at 1207. The court held that although "his immediate family and relatives were obviously known to" the defendant at the time of his arrest, his inability to contact them and secure their appearance at his initial bail hearing justified reconsideration. Id. Courts also have found § 3142(f) satisfied where there is new information regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence or the nature and seriousness of the alleged offense—facts generally not known to a criminal defendant at the time of the initial hearing—particularly where the evidence undermines the government's prior representations to the Court regarding the strength of its case. See, e.g., United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 7 DOJ-OGR-00001109 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 192 Filed 03/04/20 Page 14 of 45 (Nathan, J.) (reconsidering bail decision based, in part, on evidence suggesting government's case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at *3 (D.N.M. 2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense that defendant "could have not have martialed" in the 17 days between his indictment and the original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when the change was within the defendant's control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033-04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing). In addition, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its own decision. "[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. Rowe, No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision"). Here, Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial information and evidence that was not available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7 million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the Court's consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application. It cannot be reasonably disputed that this new evidence meets the other requirement of § 3142(f): that it have a "material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release 8 DOJ-OGR-0000110 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 139 Filed 04/07/21 Page 10 of 5 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM 212-243-1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternheimlaw.com April 7, 2021 Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The government's letter of April 6th is yet another regurgitation of its previous letters regarding Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement. No matter how often the government tries to present Ms. Maxwell's detention as superior to other inmates, it continues to miss the mark. We stand by our previous responses and reiterate that Ms. Maxwell's detention is unwarranted and overly restrictive. It is tantamount to "pay-it-forward" punishment served pretrial. The government's letter provides the opportunity to flush out the persistent unsanitary conditions at the MDC, which long predate Ms. Maxwell's detention. This past weekend there was a pervasive stench of sewage in Ms. Maxwell's unit necessitating guards to flush pipes by pouring water down open drains in an effort to trap and disperse gaseous emissions. As guards explained to Ms. Maxwell, there are three drains in the day area, and when the plumbing system goes unused, gases escape from the drains and cause the stench. At times the stench in Ms. Maxwell's isolation cell has been overwhelming due to overflowing of toilets in the cellblock above. Due to lack of privacy, Ms. Maxwell refrains from using the toilet in the isolation cell and, as directed by the guards, she flushes frequently to avoid plumbing problems. At times, the stench is apparent upon entering the visiting area. Of the many defense counsel who visit DOJ-OGR-00001398 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00830-AJN Document 129-2 Filed 02/01/21 Page 12 of 2 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 February 1, 2021 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's January 25, 2021 order allowing the parties to respond to a letter from legal counsel at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") also dated January 25, 2021. (Dkt. No. 117). In particular, MDC legal counsel asks the Court to vacate its January 15, 2021 order directing the MDC to permit the defendant to use a laptop to review discovery on weekends and holidays. While the Government has no objection to the defendant's request for additional laptop access, the Government also generally defers to the MDC regarding how it manages its inmate population. The Government will continue to defer to the MDC here, particularly because the defendant has had ample access to discovery even without laptop access on weekends and holidays. Given the volume of discovery in this case, which totals more than two million pages, the Government and the MDC have both made significant efforts to ensure that the defendant has extensive access to her discovery materials. Since the Government made its first discovery production in August 2020, the defendant has had exclusive access to a BOP desktop computer in the MDC on which to review her discovery. When the defendant complained of technical issues reviewing portions of her discovery on that desktop computer, the Government produced reformatted copies of discovery materials and instructions regarding how to open particular files. Because the defendant continued to complain that she was unable to review certain discovery files on the desktop computer, the Government agreed to provide a laptop for the defendant to use in her review of discovery. On November 18, 2020, the Government hand delivered the laptop to the MDC for the defendant's exclusive use. As the Court is aware, the defendant has received, and continues to receive more time to review her discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. In particular, the MDC permits the defendant to review discovery thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. On weekdays, the MDC permits the defendant to use the laptop during her thirteen hours of daily review time. On weekends and holidays, the MDC would ordinarily only allow the defendant to use the BOP desktop computer, which provides access to much of the discovery material. While, as noted above, the Government has no particular objection to the defendant's request for weekend access --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 192-2 Filed 08/24/20 Page 21 of 45 B. Ms. Maxwell Has Provided a Thorough Review of Her Finances for the Past Five Years The government raised concerns at the initial bail hearing about the accuracy and completeness of the financial disclosures that Ms. Maxwell provided to Pretrial Services. (Dkt. 22 at 11-12; Tr. 28-29, 34-35). The Court stated that it did not have "a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances and the resources available to her" and therefore had no way "to set financial bail conditions that could reasonably assure her appearance in court." (Tr. 86-87). To address the Court's questions about Ms. Maxwell's finances, defense counsel retained Macalvins, a highly reputable accounting firm in the United Kingdom, to conduct an analysis of Ms. Maxwell's assets and finances for the past five years. The Macalvins accountants reviewed thousands of pages of financial documents, including bank statements, tax returns, FBAR filings, and other materials to create a clear picture of the assets held by Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, as well as any assets held in trust for the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, and the source of those assets from 2015-2020. This analysis, which is based in substantial part on documents that the government provided in discovery, has involved a significant amount of work and has taken substantial time to complete. It was not possible to perform this analysis in the brief time between Ms. Maxwell's arrest and the initial bail hearing, especially with Ms. Maxwell detained following her arrest. The Macalvins report was also reviewed by [REDACTED], a Certified Fraud Examiner and a former IRS Special Agent with over 40 years of experience in complex financial fraud investigations. As a Special Agent, [REDACTED] investigated numerous financial fraud and criminal tax cases, including several in this District. [REDACTED] reviewed the Macalvins report and the underlying documents and determined that it presents a complete and accurate summary of the assets held by Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, as well as assets that were, or are currently, held in trust. DOJ-OGR-00001117 --- PAGE BREAK --- 11-12). Ms. Maxwell is not obligated to rebut every theoretical possibility that the government might raise that may contribute to a potential flight risk in order to be granted bail. That is not the standard. Cf. United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 888 n.4, 892-93 (8th Cir. 1985) ("The legal standard required by the [Bail Reform] Act is one of reasonable assurances, not absolute guarantees."). Ms. Maxwell has no intention of fleeing. If she did, then under the proposed bail conditions she would lose everything and destroy the family she has been fighting so hard to protect since Epstein's arrest. Ms. Maxwell will not do that, and should be granted bail. G. The Alternative to Bail Is Confinement Under Oppressive Conditions that Impact Ms. Maxwell's Health and Ability to Prepare Her Defense Granting bail to Ms. Maxwell is all the more appropriate and necessary because the past few months have shown that Ms. Maxwell cannot adequately participate in her defense and prepare for trial from the inside the MDC. The alternative to release is her continued confinement under extraordinarily onerous conditions that are not only unjust and punitive, but also meaningfully impair Ms. Maxwell's ability to review the voluminous discovery produced by the government and to communicate effectively with counsel to prepare her defense. Ms. Maxwell has spent the entirety of her detention — now over five months — in de facto solitary confinement, under conditions that rival those used at USP Florence ADMAX to supervise the most dangerous inmates in the federal system and are tantamount to imprisonment as a defendant convicted of capital murder and incarcerated on death row. In fact, multiple wardens and interim wardens have remarked that in their collective years of experience they have never seen anything like her current regime. The restrictive regulations to which Ms. Maxwell is subjected are not reasonably related to a legitimate goal to ensure the security of Ms. Maxwell or the MDC. Instead, it seems clear that the overly restrictive conditions are an --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 20-cr-330 Document 192 Filed 12/04/20 Page 45 of 45 For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court order her release on bail pursuant to the conditions she has proposed. Dated: December 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Mark S. Cohen Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 39 DOJ-OGR-00001141