Document 20-cr-330-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 February 16, 2021 Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The government's recent letter regarding MDC conditions (Dkt.158) essentially repeats the same points it made in defense of the MDC's request that the Court vacate its order directing the MDC to permit Ms. Maxwell to use a laptop on weekends and holidays. We appreciate the Court's concern regarding Ms. Maxwell's opportunity to review discovery and the extent to which she is required to undergo searches. The government's letter, however, does not include the concerns defense counsel has reported to MDC Legal during the past couple of months. In addition, the letter incorrectly states that legal calls are available on Saturdays. Such requests by counsel have been denied. By ignoring the myriad other issues reported by counsel, the government's letter misrepresents Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement. Ms. Maxwell does not have access to daily discovery review for the entirety of the 13 hours. The vagaries and delays of moving her the 50 feet or so from the isolation cell to the day room are a large part of the challenge. The number of searches is also not correct. Ms. Maxwell is searched on every move, including to the empty concrete space, adjacent to the day room, used for recreation. Currently, she is subject to a minimum of four pat down searches a day if she goes to rec, and five pat down searches on the day of her weekly body scan. Since July 6th, Ms. Maxwell has been physically searched approximately 1400 times, including pat down searches, metal wand searches, mouth, hair and ear searches (posing additional health risks during COVID), and upwards of 60 body scans. In addition, there have been hundreds of physical searches of her isolation cell, locker, legal papers, and personal effects. No contraband has ever been found. We take issue with MDC's assessment that "the searches are all necessary for the safety of the institution and the defendant." Ms. Maxwell is under 24-hour surveillance by two to six guards and approximately 18 cameras, not including the hand-held camera, focused on her throughout the areas in which she is moved and confined. Ms. Maxwell poses no danger to anyone. Her restrictive conditions, searches, and constant surveillance correlate directly to BOP negligence resulting in the death of Jeffrey Epstein. DOJ-OGR-00001287 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v.- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. THE GOVERNMENT'S 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 - DOJ-OGR-00000946 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 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 1 DOJ-OGR-00000986 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v.- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - DOJ-OGR-00001143 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00320-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/15/20 Page 165 of 216 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER Sigrid S. McCawley Telephone: (954) 377-4223 Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com December 15, 2020 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: Annie Farmer submits the following statement in opposition to the Defendant's renewed motion for bail. *** I appreciate the opportunity to again be heard by the Court in this matter and once more request that Ghislaine Maxwell not be released prior to her trial. I write this not only on behalf of myself, but all of the other girls and young women who were victimized by Maxwell. Ghislaine Maxwell sexually abused me as a child and the government has the responsibility to make sure that she stands trial for her crimes. I do not believe that will happen or that any of the women she exploited will see justice if she is released on bail. She has lived a life of privilege, abusing her position of power to live beyond the rules. Fleeing the country in order to escape once more would fit with her long history of anti-social behavior. Drawing on my personal experience with Maxwell and what I have learned of how she has lived since that time, I believe that she is a psychopath. Her abuse of me and many other children and young women is evidence of her disregard for and violation of the rights of others. She has demonstrated a complete failure to accept to responsibility in any way for her actions and demonstrated a complete lack of remorse for her central role in procuring girls for Epstein to abuse. She was both charming and manipulative with me during the grooming process, consistent with what many of the women she abused have described. She has frequently lied to others, including repeatedly lying about me and my family. Maxwell has for decades lived a parasitic lifestyle relying on Epstein and others to fund her lavish existence. Maxwell has repeatedly demonstrated that her primary concern is her own welfare, and that she is willing to harm others if it benefits her. She is quite capable of doing so once more. She will not hesitate to leave the country irrespective of whether others will be on the hook financially for her actions because she lacks empathy, and therefore simply does not care about hurting others. She would in fact be highly motivated to flee in order to reduce the possibility of continued imprisonment, the conditions of which she has continuously complained. Her actions over the last several years and choice to live in isolation for long periods suggest that being comfortable is more BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 954 356 0022 | www.bsfllp.com DOJ-OGR-00001179 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, v Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) OPINION AND 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. 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. Bail was therefore denied. The Defendant has now filed a renewed motion for release on bail pending trial, which the Government opposes. In her renewed motion, the Defendant attempts to respond to the reasons that the Court provided in denying bail and proposes a substantially larger bail package. But by and large, the arguments presented either were made at the initial bail hearing or could have been made then. In any event, the new information provided in the renewed application only solidifies the Court's view that the Defendant plainly poses a risk of flight and that no 1 DOJ-OGR-00001210 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------X REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER THIRD MOTION FOR BAIL Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 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 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 1 DOJ-OGR-00001255 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 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 1 DOJ-OGR-00001274 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: 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 1 DOJ-OGR-00001349 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On April 29, 2021, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell wrote to the Court requesting that the Court address her sleeping conditions, with particular emphasis on counsel's representation, unsupported by affidavit or other factual showing, that guards are shining a flashlight in Maxwell's eyes every 15 minutes at night. Dkt. No. 256. Defense counsel claims that the flashlight surveillance in Maxwell's eyes is disrupting her sleep, which in turn is impacting her ability to prepare for and withstand trial. The Court sought more information by ordering the Government to confer with legal counsel for the Bureau of Prisons and to respond to certain questions. Dkt. No. 257. In response, the Government states that MDC staff conduct flashlight checks of all inmates as a matter of course. Dkt. No. 270. As reported by the Government, inmates housed with cell mates in the Special Housing Unit are checked with flashlights every 30 minutes. Inmates housed with others in the general population are checked multiple times per night at regular intervals. The Government further reports that to conduct the checks, flashlights are pointed at the ceiling of the cell to confirm that the inmate is present, breathing, and not in distress. As the Government explains, there are a number of neutral reasons why BOP's flashlight checks of Maxwell are relatively more frequent than those of other inmates, including that Maxwell is housed alone, the nature of the charges, and the potential stress for inmates that 1 DOJ-OGR-00001427 --- PAGE BREAK --- COHEN & GRESSER LLP Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 everdell@cohengresser.com 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cohengresser.com USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 5/3/21 April 30, 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, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: We write to respectfully request the Court to issue an order to the MDC directing it to accept two hard drives from defense counsel that contain the non-Highly Confidential discovery in this case for Ms. Maxwell's use at the MDC. In an effort to facilitate Ms. Maxwell's review of the discovery, defense counsel have created a master set of two hard drives that contain a complete set of the discovery produced by the government so far, excluding the materials marked Highly Confidential, which Ms. Maxwell is not permitted to possess in the MDC pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order. The master drives are easier to use than her existing hard drives because they collect all of the material in one place and organize the documents in a more user-friendly format. For example, the November 18, 2020 production containing roughly 2.2 million pages was produced in load file format, which contains images of individual pages of documents in native file format, image file format, and other formats. The hard drives organize these files by document, as opposed to by page, and eliminate duplicative file formats so that Ms. Maxwell will not have to add countless hours to her review. Defense counsel would like to send these hard drives to Ms. Maxwell for her to use in the MDC. We were informed by the MDC Legal Department that they are only permitted to accept hard drives that are loaded and certified by the U.S. Attorney's Office. We have conferred with the government, which has advised that it does not object to the defense making an application to the Court to issue an order directing the MDC to accept the hard drives. The government requested, however, that the Court allow MDC legal counsel the opportunity to note their objections to the Court. Counsel for the MDC may submit any objection to the Defendant's request by May 4, 2021. SO ORDERED. SO ORDERED. ALISON J. NATHAN, U.S.D.J. 5/3/21 DOJ-OGR-00004075 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case#: 2020cr00330 (AJN) Document#: 322 Filed#: 8/19/21 Page 1 of 4 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 8/19/21 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 August 18, 2021 VIA 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 footnote 1 of the Court's Opinion and Order denying the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's supplemental pretrial motions. (Dkt. No. 317). In that footnote, the Court noted that the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars included a request that the Government identify her unnamed co-conspirators, as did her position in the parties' joint letter regarding the disclosure schedule. The Court wrote that, because the Government had not objected, it "presumes the Government intends to disclose this information to Maxwell at the same time that . . . it discloses Jencks Act material." (Id. at 12 n.1). To be clear, the Government objects to any requirement that it provide an exhaustive list of co-conspirators, whether in a bill of particulars or otherwise, and does not intend to do so absent further order of the Court.1 The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer in an effort to reach an agreement on the disclosure issues raised in this letter. If the parties reach an agreement, they shall inform the Court by August 26, 2021. If the parties do not reach agreement, the Defendant may file a response to the arguments made here by the Government on or before August 30, 2021. Any response letter shall confirm that the meet and confer occurred. SO ORDERED. 1 The Government has opposed the defendant's requests for such a list as part of its opposition to the defense motions for a bill of particulars. In the parties' joint letter regarding the disclosure schedule, the defendant sought early disclosure of both the identities of unindicted co-conspirators and their statements. (Dkt. No. 291 at 7-8, 10-13). The Government took the position that the defense could "receive notice of any co-conspirator statements through Jencks Act materials and marked exhibits." (Id. at 5). The Government also noted that "[t]he cases cited by the defense all DOJ-OGR-00005001 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case #: 2020-cr-00303 (AJN) Document #: 611 Filed: 02/24/22 Page 1 of 1 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM 212-243-1100 • Main 917-912-9698 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 bcsternheim@mac.com February 24, 2022 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: In response to today's Court Order (Dkt. 610), the defense proposes limited redactions to the attached Opinion and Order, dated February 24, 2022, filed under temporary seal. Very truly yours, /s/ BOBBI C. STERNHEIM Attachment (under temporary seal) cc: Counsel of Record USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 2/25/22 The Court approves the Defense's proposed redactions, which are narrowly tailored to redact specific categories of questions the Court may ask at the forthcoming hearing. Consistent with this Court's prior order, such redactions help ensure the integrity of the forthcoming hearing. See Dkt. No. 596. The Court will docket the redacted Opinion & Order. As noted in the prior order, the redactions will be promptly unsealed following the hearing. SO ORDERED. Alison J. Nathan 2/25/22 DOJ-OGR-00009541 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Voire Dire New York, N.Y. November 16, 2021 8:45 a.m. Before: HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge APPEARANCES DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: MAURENE COMEY ALISON MOE LARA POMERANTZ ANDREW ROHRBACH Assistant United States Attorneys HADDON MORGAN AND FOREMAN Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL LAURA A. MENNINGER -and- BOBBI C. STERNHEIM Attorney for Defendant -and- RENATO STABILE Attorney for Defendant Also Present: SUNNY DRESCHER, Paralegal, U.S. Attorney's Office CAMILLE DELGADO, Paralegal, Haddon Morgan and Foreman SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - v. - GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: WHEREAS the Government intends to produce to GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, certain documents and materials that (i) affect the privacy and confidentiality of individuals, (ii) would impede, if prematurely disclosed, the Government's ongoing investigation; (iii) would risk prejudicial pretrial publicity if publicly disseminated, and (iv) is not authorized to be disclosed to the public or disclosed beyond that which is necessary for the defense of this action, and other materials pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 ("Rule 16") and pursuant to any other disclosure obligations (collectively, the "Discovery"), which contain sensitive, confidential, or personal identifying information; WHEREAS, the Government seeks to protect sensitive, confidential, or personal identifying information contained in the materials it produces consistent with Rule 16 or other disclosure obligations; USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 7/30/2020 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case#:2000CR0330 Document#:462 Filed:08/21/20 Page:1 of 5 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 August 21, 2020 VIA 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 opposition to the defendant's letter of August 17, 2020 (the "Defense Letter"), requesting that the Court enter an order permitting the defendant to file under seal in certain civil cases (the "Civil Cases") discovery materials produced by the Government in the instant criminal case, and to refer to, but not file, additional other discovery materials produced by the Government in the Civil Cases. Those applications should be denied.1 As an initial matter, the Government has already produced, and will continue to produce, substantial volumes of materials in discovery consistent with its obligations. Those include materials the Government obtained via search warrant, grand jury subpoenas, or other investigative methods available only to the Government. Indeed, the Government has already produced more than 165,000 pages of discovery to the defense, including the materials relevant to the Defense Letter. Through her most recent application, the defendant seeks permission to use, in unrelated civil litigation, materials produced pursuant to the protective order in this case and designated "Confidential" thereunder. As detailed herein, the Government's designation is entirely appropriate given that the materials—court orders and applications—have been kept under seal by the issuing judges, and pertain to an ongoing criminal investigation. 1 The Government has drafted this letter in a manner that avoids revealing the contents of sealed materials and grand jury information. Accordingly, the Government does not seek permission to seal or redact this submission. Because the Defense Letter repeatedly references, and attaches as exhibits, materials that are sealed and that would jeopardize an ongoing grand jury investigation if filed publicly, the Government intends to submit a separate letter, under seal, proposing redactions to the Defense Letter and requesting that the attachments to the Defense Letter be filed under seal. DOJ-OGR-00019334 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: 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 ... In light of this ruling, the parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer with respect to proposed redactions to the Defendant's reply letter, dated August 24, 2020 and the Defendant's August 24, 2020 letter addressing her proposed redactions to the Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion. The parties are further ORDERED to submit their proposed redactions no later than September 4, 2020; if the parties cannot agree on their proposed redactions, they shall submit a joint letter to the Court explaining the nature of their dispute. 1 Attachment A to Opening Brief DOJ-OGR-00019440 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: 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. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 23, 2020 New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge App.038 DOJ-OGR-00019497 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : : : [PROPOSED] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : PROTECTIVE ORDER : - v. - : 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) : GHISLAINE MAXWELL, : Defendant. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - x ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: WHEREAS the Government intends to produce to GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, certain documents and materials that (i) affect the privacy and confidentiality of individuals, (ii) would impede, if prematurely disclosed, the Government's ongoing investigation; (iii) would risk prejudicial pretrial publicity if publicly disseminated, and (iv) is not authorized to be disclosed to the public or disclosed beyond that which is necessary for the defense of this action, and other materials pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 ("Rule 16") and pursuant to any other disclosure obligations (collectively, the "Discovery"), which contain sensitive, confidential, or personal identifying information; WHEREAS, the Government seeks to protect sensitive, confidential, or personal identifying information contained in the materials it produces consistent with Rule 16 or other disclosure obligations; 1 App.063 DOJ-OGR-00019522 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: 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. Smith, 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). 1 App.087 DOJ-OGR-00019546 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: 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 ... In light of this ruling, the parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer with respect to proposed redactions to the Defendant's reply letter, dated August 24, 2020 and the Defendant's August 24, 2020 letter addressing her proposed redactions to the Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion. The parties are further ORDERED to submit their proposed redactions no later than September 4, 2020; if the parties cannot agree on their proposed redactions, they shall submit a joint letter to the Court explaining the nature of their dispute. 1 App.099 DOJ-OGR-00019558 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v.- 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------x 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(e)(3)(E); 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. 1 DOJ-OGR-00000947 --- PAGE BREAK --- 892-93 (8th Cir. 1985) ("The legal standard required by the [Bail Reform] Act is one of reasonable assurances, not absolute guarantees."). Under, the Bail Reform Act, a defendant must be released unless there are "no conditions" that would reasonably assure her presence. Here, the proposed package satisfies the actual governing standard, and the Court should grant bail. ARGUMENT I. The Government Concedes that Its Case Relies Almost Exclusively on the Testimony of Three Witnesses In evaluating the strength of the government's case in its prior ruling, the Court relied on the government's proffer that the testimony of the three accusers would be corroborated by "significant contemporaneous documentary evidence." (Tr. 82 (emphasis added)). The government now expressly retreats from this position. It is abundantly clear from the government's response that it has no "significant contemporaneous documentary evidence"—in fact, it has virtually no documentary corroboration at all—and that its case against Ms. Maxwell is based almost exclusively on the recollections of the three accusers, who remain unidentified, concerning events that took place over 25 years ago. Moreover, the government offers no specificity about when within the four-year period of the charged conspiracy the alleged incidents of abuse took place. This, alone, is grounds for the Court to reconsider its prior ruling. The few examples of documentary corroboration referenced by the government—which are the same examples that the government touted at the initial bail hearing—pertain to Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell. The government concedes that ____________________ (Gov. Mem. at 11 (emphasis added)). The government further states that ____________________ (Id. (emphasis added)). The strength of the government's case against Jeffrey Epstein is not at issue --- PAGE BREAK --- Case1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document121-2 Filed01/15/21 Page2 of 2 COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7400 phone Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED: 1/15/21 January 14, 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, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request that the Court order the Bureau of Prisons to give Ms. Maxwell access to the laptop computer provided by the government so that she can review discovery on weekends and holidays. At the request of defense counsel, the government provided Ms. Maxwell with a laptop computer to review the voluminous discovery, which was produced on a series of external hard drives. Currently, Ms. Maxwell is given access to the laptop only on weekdays. On weekends and holidays, Ms. Maxwell must use the prison computer on her floor to review discovery. However, the prison computer is not equipped with the software necessary to read large portions of the discovery recently produced by the government. As a result, Ms. Maxwell loses several days of review time every weekend and every holiday because she does not have access to the laptop. If Ms. Maxwell is to have any hope of reviewing the millions of documents produced in discovery so that she can properly prepare her defense by the July 12, 2021 trial date, she must have access to the laptop every day, including weekends and holidays. Defense counsel has raised this issue with the government and it has no objection to Ms. Maxwell having access to the laptop seven days a week. At the request of defense counsel, the government has contacted officials at the MDC on several occasions in the past few weeks to request that they lift this restriction, but without success. There is no principled justification for this restriction. Ms. Maxwell was given access to the laptop every day (including weekends and the Thanksgiving holiday) for the entire 14-day period that she was quarantined in her isolation cell in November-December 2020 because she had come into close contact with a member of the MDC staff who had tested positive for COVID. In addition, the laptop is kept in a locker in the same room where the prison computer is located, so it DOJ-OGR-00001351 --- PAGE BREAK --- Cased 20-cr-330-AJN Document 112 Filed 02/20/21 Pageage 3 of 9 citizens of those countries. The latter condition will restrain Ms. Maxwell's assets so they cannot be used for flight or harboring her outside of the jurisdiction of this Court. This should satisfy the Court's concern that the proposed bond was not fully secured and left assets unrestrained that could be used for such purposes. (See id. at 17-18). In addition, since the last bail application, Ms. Maxwell has submitted twelve pretrial motions that raise substantial legal and factual issues that may result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges against her. Ms. Maxwell referenced some of these motions in her initial bail application (see Dkt. 18 at 19) but was not in a position to fully articulate them until she had the chance to review the discovery and research the legal issues in advance of the motion deadline of January 25. These motions significantly call into question the strength of the government's case against Ms. Maxwell and the underlying justification for continued detention. Ms. Maxwell has already been denied a fair chance in the court of public opinion. She has been maligned by the media, which has perpetuated a false narrative about her that has poisoned any open-mindedness and impartiality of a potential jury. She has been relentlessly attacked with vicious slurs, persistent lies, and blatant inaccuracies by spokespeople who have neither met nor spoken to her. She has been depicted as a cartoon-character villain in an attempt to turn her into a substitute replacement for Jeffrey Epstein. Yet, Ms. Maxwell is determined - and welcomes the opportunity - to face her accusers at trial and clear her name. The additional proposed bail conditions should quell any concerns that she would try to flee. The Court should therefore grant bail under the proposed conditions so that Ms. Maxwell can adequately prepare for trial. 3 DOJ-OGR-00001235 --- PAGE BREAK --- New Information for the Court's Consideration The defense has devoted substantial time and effort to compile information that was not available to Ms. Maxwell at the time of the initial bail hearing that squarely addresses each of the factors the Court considered at that hearing. Because of these efforts, Ms. Maxwell can now present the following additional information in support of her renewed bail application: - Letter from Ms. Maxwell's spouse. This letter demonstrates that Ms. Maxwell has powerful family ties to the United States that she will not abandon. It describes the committed relationship between Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, who is a U.S. citizen, and how they lived a quiet family life together in the United States for over four years immediately prior to her arrest. The letter further explains that Ms. Maxwell was forced to leave her family and drop out of the public eye, not because she was trying to evade law enforcement, but because the intense media frenzy and threats following the arrest and death of Jeffrey Epstein threatened the safety and wellbeing of herself and her family, For these same reasons, Ms. Maxwell's spouse did not come forward as a co-signer at the time of the initial hearing. (Ex. A). - Letters from numerous other friends and family members. These letters from Ms. Maxwell's other sureties and several family members and friends attest to Ms. Maxwell's strong, forthright character and their confidence that she will not flee. The sureties also describe the significant financial distress they would suffer if Ms. Maxwell were to violate her bail conditions. (Exs. B-N, W-X). - Financial report. The financial report, prepared by the accounting firm Macalvins Limited, provides an accounting of Ms. Maxwell's financial condition from 2015-2020, and discloses (i) all of her own assets, (ii) all assets held in trust, and (iii) all of the assets held by her spouse over that same time period. The report reflects that the total value of assets in all three categories is approximately $22.5 million, which is the amount of the proposed bond. (Ex. O). - Report from former IRS agent. a former IRS agent with over 40 years of experience in criminal tax and financial fraud investigations, reviewed the Macalvins report and confirmed that it presents a complete and accurate picture of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse's assets from 2015-2020. (Ex. P). - Statement from the person in charge of Ms. Maxwell's security. This statement rebuts the government's claim that she attempted to hide from law enforcement at the time of her arrest. (Ex. S). - Extradition waivers and expert affidavits. To address the Court's concerns about extradition, Ms. Maxwell will present irrevocable written waivers of her right to --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v.- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's renewed motion for release on bail, dated December 8, 2020 (the "Renewed Bail Motion"). Five months ago, after thorough briefing and a nearly two-hour hearing, this Court concluded that the defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no condition or combination of conditions could ensure her appearance in court. The defense now asks this Court to reverse that finding by essentially repackaging its prior arguments and presenting a more specific bail package. However, at the July 14, 2020 bail hearing in this case, this Court rejected the defendant's request to keep the record open to allow the defendant to do precisely what she has done here—namely, present more detailed information about her finances and a more concrete package—determining that further information about her financial picture would be irrelevant because no combination of conditions could ensure this defendant's appearance. The Court's conclusion was plainly correct, and the Renewed Bail Motion does nothing to undermine it. The offense conduct outlined in the Indictment remains incredibly serious, the evidence against the defendant remains strong, and the defendant continues to have extensive financial resources and foreign ties, as well as the 1 DOJ-OGR-00001146 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: 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 1 This Order will not refer to any redacted or otherwise confidential information, and as a result it will not be sealed. The Court will adopt the redactions to Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion that the Government proposed on August 21, 2020, and it will enter that version into the public docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed 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 119-20. "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 Government's proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the defendant's letter motion is "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). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, thereby satisfying the second element. But in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Government has put forth - including, most notably, the threat that public disclosure of the redacted sections would interfere with an ongoing grand jury investigation - favor the Government's proposed narrowly tailored redactions. In light of this ruling, the parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer with respect to proposed redactions to the Defendant's reply letter, dated August 24, 2020 and the Defendant's August 24, 2020 letter addressing her proposed redactions to the Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion. The parties are further ORDERED to submit their proposed redactions no later than September 4, 2020; if the parties cannot agree on their proposed redactions, they shall submit a joint letter to the Court explaining the nature of their dispute. 1 DOJ-OGR-00019258 --- PAGE BREAK --- was arrested and has shown no signs of abating. Indeed, in the three months after her arrest, Ms. Maxwell was the subject of over 6,500 national media articles. That exceeds the number of articles that mentioned such high-profile defendants as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzmán Loera, and Keith Raniere in the 90-day period following their arrests, combined. The media coverage has ruthlessly vilified her and prejudged her guilt, and has exposed her family and friends to harassment, physical threats, and other negative consequences. But Ms. Maxwell is not the person the media has portrayed her to be; far from it. And her response to these unfounded allegations remains unchanged: she resolutely and vehemently denies them, and she is steadfastly committed to remaining in this country, where she has been since Epstein's arrest in July 2019, to fight them in court. For Ms. Maxwell to flee, she would have to abandon her spouse [REDACTED]. She will not risk destroying the lives and financial well-being of those she holds most dear to live as a fugitive during a worldwide pandemic. In fact, every action Ms. Maxwell has taken from the time of Epstein's arrest up to the time of the first bail hearing was designed to protect her spouse [REDACTED] from harassment, economic harm, and physical danger. Ms. Maxwell wants to stay in New York and have her day in court so that she can clear her name and return to her family. Justice is not reserved solely for the victims of a crime; it is for the accused as well. Here, justice would be served by granting Ms. Maxwell bail under the comprehensive conditions we propose. The alternative is continued detention under oppressive conditions that are unprecedented for a non-violent pretrial detainee, which significantly impair her ability to participate in her defense and prepare for trial and which jeopardize her physical health and psychological wellbeing. --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/10/20 Page 8 of 260 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 4 DOJ-OGR-00000964 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v- 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 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 - DOJ-OGR-00000985 --- PAGE BREAK --- that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community." The evidence submitted herewith relates directly to factors on which the Court relied in its initial detention order. Among the bases for the Court's initial order denying bail were its findings that: - Ms. Maxwell's lack of "significant family ties" in the United States suggested "that flight would not pose an insurmountable burden for her" (Tr. 84); - the Court lacked "a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances and the resources available to her" that would allow it to set reasonable bail conditions (Tr. 87); - "[c]ircumstances of her arrest . . . may cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the government" (Tr. 85); - Ms. Maxwell "is a citizen of France, a nation that does not appear to extradite its citizens" (Tr. 83); and - the government had proffered that its "witness testimony will be corroborated by significant contemporaneous documentary evidence" (Tr. 82). The additional evidence submitted herewith demonstrates that Ms. Maxwell does have significant family ties in the United States; that her assets have been thoroughly disclosed and reasonable bail conditions can be set; that Ms. Maxwell has never attempted to hide from the government; that Ms. Maxwell has waived her extradition rights and it is highly likely she would be extradited from the United Kingdom or France; and that the government's case against her is not supported by the corroborating documentary evidence which the government represented at the initial hearing. The evidence submitted herewith is significant and substantial, and it could not have reasonably been obtained, assembled, and submitted in the 12 days between Ms. Maxwell's arrest and her initial detention hearing. This evidence has a material bearing on whether reasonable bail conditions can be set, and it shows that the proposed set of conditions will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance in court. 9 DOJ-OGR-00001111 --- PAGE BREAK --- II. Ms. Maxwell Should Be Granted Bail Under the Proposed Strict Bail Conditions A. Ms. Maxwell Has Deep Family Ties to the United States and Numerous Sureties to Support Her Bond Attached to this submission are letters from Ms. Maxwell's spouse and from numerous close family members and friends, many of whom have agreed to serve as sureties to support Ms. Maxwell's renewed bail application. (See Exs. A-N, W-X). Far from the cruel caricature that the press has so recklessly depicted since the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, these letters demonstrate that Ms. Maxwell is generous, loving, and devoted to her family and friends, and that her life is firmly rooted in this country with her spouse. The signatories of these letters have known Ms. Maxwell for decades, and some for her entire life. All know her to be the antithesis of what the government has alleged. They trust her completely, including with their minor children. These people have stepped forward to support Ms. Maxwell, despite the considerable risk that, if their names ever become public, they will be subjected to some of the same relentless and harassing media intrusion and personal threats that Ms. Maxwell has experienced for years. As a sign of their confidence that Ms. Maxwell will remain in this country, the sureties have agreed to sign their own bonds and to post meaningful pledges of cash or property in amounts that would cause them significant financial distress if Ms. Maxwell were to violate her bail conditions. These letters directly address the concern the Court expressed at the last bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell did not have "any dependents [or] significant family ties" to the United States. (Tr. 84). If Ms. Maxwell were to flee, she would be leaving behind the family that has been the center of her life, she would be abandoning her spouse. 10 DOJ-OGR-00001112 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 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 1 DOJ-OGR-00000864 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-0330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/07/20 Page 14 of 20 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(e)(3)(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, 10 DOJ-OGR-00000970 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - v. - GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. SUPERSEDEDING INDICTMENT S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) The Grand Jury charges: OVERVIEW 1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18. 2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to App.013 DOJ-OGR-00019472 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR DETENTION Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice admission pending) Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FORMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell --- PAGE BREAK --- trust for the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, from 2015-2020. The Macalvins report and 's report are attached as Exhibits O and P.4 As set forth in the Macalvins report, Ms. Maxwell's net worth at the beginning of 2015 was approximately $20,200,000. (Ex. O ¶ 11). The 2015 tax return records the sale of a residential property in New York City for $15,075,000. The address of this property is . The proceeds of the sale were deposited at (Id. ¶ 12). The sale of Ms. Maxwell's New York apartment coincided with her intention to live with her spouse (See Ex. A ¶ 2). Ms. Maxwell married her spouse in 2016 and commenced filing joint U.S. tax returns from the 2016 tax year until today. (Ex. O ¶ 13). In 2016, Ms. Maxwell transferred the majority of her assets into a trust controlled by her spouse and . (Id.). All assets in the trust were distributed to Ms. Maxwell's spouse in 2019. (Id. at 9). Ms. Maxwell and her spouse's net worth as of October 31, 2020 was approximately $22,500,000. (Id. ¶ 15).5 There has been no alienation of any assets and no significant sum of cash has been transferred outside of the control of Ms. Maxwell or her spouse in the period from 2015-4 We have not provided the Court with the appendices to the Macalvins report because they are voluminous. If the Court would like copies of the appendices, we are happy to provide them. 5 At her Pretrial Services interview, Ms. Maxwell reported that she believed she had approximately $3.8 million in assets, which included her London residence worth approximately $3 million, and approximately $800,000 in bank accounts. Ms. Maxwell was detained at the time and had no access to her financial records and was trying to piece together these numbers from memory. According to the Macalvins report, these figures are a close approximation of the value of the assets that Ms. Maxwell held in her own name at the time of her arrest. (Id. at 9). For the reasons already discussed, Ms. Maxwell was reluctant to discuss anything about her husband and expressed that to Pretrial Services. 16 DOJ-OGR-0000118 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: 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 1 This Order will not refer to any redacted or otherwise confidential information, and as a result it will not be sealed. The Court will adopt the redactions to Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion that the Government proposed on August 21, 2020, and it will enter that version into the public docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed 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 119-20. "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 Government's proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the defendant's letter motion is "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). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, thereby satisfying the second element. But in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Government has put forth--including, most notably, the threat that public disclosure of the redacted sections would interfere with an ongoing grand jury investigation--favor the Government's proposed narrowly tailored redactions. In light of this ruling, the parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer with respect to proposed redactions to the Defendant's reply letter, dated August 24, 2020 and the Defendant's August 24, 2020 letter addressing her proposed redactions to the Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion. The parties are further ORDERED to submit their proposed redactions no later than September 4, 2020; if the parties cannot agree on their proposed redactions, they shall submit a joint letter to the Court explaining the nature of their dispute. 1 DOJ-OGR-00019328 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 192 Filed 09/28/20 Page 17 of 20 2020, other than daily living expenditures for her family and for professional services in the defense of Ms. Maxwell from the charges she faces. (Id. ¶ 16). The Macalvins report confirms that Ms. Maxwell disclosed all of her foreign bank accounts in FBAR filings and properly disclosed her bank accounts, investments and other assets in her U.S. tax filings at all times. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 30). The report also explains that the transfers of funds between various accounts in the past few years, which the government highlighted in their initial bail submission (Dkt. 22 at 11-12), reflected movements between banks triggered by the closure of one banking relationship and the opening of new relationship, as well movements of cash maturing on deposit and other financial investments. (Id. ¶ 18). At the last bail hearing, the government suggested that Ms. Maxwell's finances were "opaque" and that she potentially had "significant [] undetermined and undisclosed wealth." (Tr. 27; Dkt. 22 at 11-12). The Macalvins report lifts this cloud of unjustified intrigue and provides a straightforward answer: Ms. Maxwell and her spouse currently have assets worth approximately $22.5 million.6 Accordingly, the proposed bond amount of $22.5 million represents all of the couple's current assets. The report further shows that Ms. Maxwell has no undisclosed wealth and is not hiding assets overseas. To the contrary, for the past several years, Ms. Maxwell and her husband have disclosed their foreign assets by submitting FBAR filings regarding their 6 We have redacted the name of the bank where Although the balance of the account is fully disclosed in the Macalvins report, we felt it necessary to redact the name of the bank because We will, of course, follow the Court's guidance on how to proceed and provide the name of the bank to the Court and the government, if required. In that event, we ask that the Court establish guidelines limiting what the government can do with the information. 17 DOJ-OGR-00001119 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 20-2 Filed 02/02/20 Page 24 of 45 foreign bank accounts. Ms. Maxwell is not trying to hide anything from the government. She has been entirely transparent with her finances and has filed accurate and timely joint tax returns with her spouse for the last four years, and she has put it all at risk of forfeiture if she flees under the proposed bail package. The Macalvins report and the report of give the Court a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances. Accordingly, the Court should have no pause about granting her on bail on the proposed terms. C. Ms. Maxwell Was Not Hiding from the Government Before Her Arrest 1. Ms. Maxwell Was Trying to Protect Herself from a Media Frenzy and from Physical Threats The letter from Ms. Maxwell's spouse also forcefully debunks the fiction that Ms. Maxwell was trying to conceal her whereabouts from the government before her arrest, as the government argued at the first bail hearing. (Tr. 25). Ms. Maxwell made efforts to remove herself from the public eye solely to prevent the intrusion of the frenzied press into her personal family life and to protect herself, her spouse, from third parties who threatened violence. To suggest that she was a fugitive is patently wrong. After Epstein's arrest and subsequent death in BOP custody, the media coverage of Ms. Maxwell spiked dramatically, as the press rushed to substitute Ms. Maxwell for Epstein as the target of the scandal. The graph below illustrates the volume of press articles relating to Ms. Maxwell over the course of the last five years.7 The graph shows that Ms. Maxwell was mentioned in news articles only sporadically between October 2015 and June 2019. It was not until Mr. Epstein's arrest in July 2019 that Ms. Maxwell was thrown into the media spotlight. For example, Ms. Maxwell was mentioned in only 59 articles in total from October 2015 to June 2019. Immediately following Epstein's arrest, however, she was 7 In order to quantify the number of articles published about Ms. Maxwell, we used Nexis NewsDesk, a media monitoring and analytics service provided by LexisNexis. 18 DOJ-OGR-00001120 --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER RENEWED MOTION FOR BAIL Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GREISSER 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 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/10/20 Page 21 of 260 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(e)(3)(E), 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 2 DOJ-OGR-00000962 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-0330-AJN Document 1920 Filed 08/24/20 Page 21 of 205 (Ex. A ¶¶ 8-10). Ms. Maxwell had no choice but to separate herself (Id. ¶ 11). Since Ms. Maxwell's own arrest in July 2020, the press attention has exploded. It significantly dwarfs the media attention given to other recent high-profile defendants such as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán Loera, and Keith Raniere. As reflected in the graph below, in the 90-day period immediately following her arrest, Ms. Maxwell was mentioned in more national media articles than in the analogous 90-day periods for Mr. Weinstein, Mr. Cosby, Mr. Guzmán Loera, and Mr. Raniere combined. ALL U.S. MEDIA COVERAGE COMPARISON (90 DAYS OF ARREST) NUMBER OF ARTICLES GHISLAINE MAXWELL Harvey Weinstein Bill Cosby Joaquin Guzman Loera Keith Raniere 21 DOJ-OGR-00001123 --- PAGE BREAK --- 2. Ms. Maxwell's Counsel Was in Regular Contact with the Government Prior to Her Arrest At no time, however, did Ms. Maxwell intend to flee or hide from the government, as the government argued at the last bail hearing. In fact, her intent was exactly the opposite. As her spouse's letter makes clear, after spending a few months away , Ms. Maxwell moved so that she could be within driving distance of the prosecutors in New York in case they wished to speak to her. (Ex. A ¶ 12) (“[Ghislain] was adamant to not only stay in the United States to fight the smears against her, but to be within driving distance of New York.”). Contrary to the impression given by the government, Ms. Maxwell was not “changing locations on multiple occasions” as if she were a fugitive from justice. (Tr. 87). After Ms. Maxwell moved into the house in New Hampshire in December 2019, she remained there continuously for approximately seven months until her arrest. (See Ex. B) (“[S]he was finally able to locate a place where she could not be moving around constantly and collect herself to fight for her life and to clear her name.”). Ms. Maxwell, through her counsel, was also in regular contact with the government from the moment of Epstein's arrest up the time of her own arrest, as would be customary in such situations. Defense counsel corresponded by email, spoke on the phone, or had in-person meetings with government in July, August, September, and October 2019, and also in January and March 2020. The timeline attached to this submission illustrates the extent of these contacts. (Ex. R). Defense counsel also requested an opportunity to be heard in the event that the government was considering any charging decisions against Ms. Maxwell. We were never given that opportunity, which is uncharacteristic for the Southern District of New York, nor were we given any notice of her impending arrest. --- PAGE BREAK --- The government argued to the Court that defense counsel's contact with the prosecutors in the months leading up to Ms. Maxwell's arrest prove little about her intent to stay in this country simply because she never disclosed her location. (Tr. 26). While Ms. Maxwell was understandably not in the habit of volunteering her whereabouts given the intensity of the press attention, her counsel would have provided that information had the government asked for it. The government never did. 3. Ms. Maxwell Did Not Try to Avoid Arrest, Nor Was She "Good At" Hiding Similarly, had the government reached out to defense counsel before Ms. Maxwell's arrest, we would have willingly arranged for her self-surrender. We were never given that chance. Instead, the government arrested her in a totally unnecessary early morning raid with multiple federal agents at her residence in New Hampshire, on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, creating the misimpression that Ms. Maxwell was hiding from them. That is simply not the case. The government argued that the events of Ms. Maxwell's arrest—in particular, that she moved herself into an interior room when the officers approached the house and that they found a cell phone wrapped in tin foil—evidence an attempt to evade law enforcement. (Tr. 32-34). As we previously explained to the Court, Ms. Maxwell was protecting herself from the press, not trying to avoid arrest. (Tr. 54-57). Since the hearing, we have obtained the accompanying statement from [REDACTED] the head of the security company guarding Ms. Maxwell at the time of her arrest, which was not available at the time of the initial hearing. (Ex. S). [REDACTED] statement demonstrates that Ms. Maxwell was not avoiding arrest, but was following an agreed-upon procedure to protect herself in the event of a potential threat to her safety or security. 23 DOJ-OGR-00001125 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 206-1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 24 of 95 According to , the security guard on duty that day had seen helicopters flying over the house, which he assumed to be the press. (Id.). When the guard saw the FBI agents walking up the driveway to the house, he again assumed that they were members of the press. (Id.). Accordingly, he radioed Ms. Maxwell to alert her that the press was on the grounds and approaching the house. (Id.). In accordance with the procedure that Ms. Maxwell's security personnel had put in place for such an event, Ms. Maxwell moved away from the windows and into a safe room inside the house. (Id.). Ms. Maxwell was not trying to avoid arrest; she was simply following the established security protocols to protect herself from what had been informed was an ambush by the press. Regarding the cellphone wrapped in tin foil, we explained to the Court at the initial bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell took this step to prevent the press from accessing her phone after the Second Circuit inadvertently unsealed certain court records with the phone number unredacted. (Tr. 55-56). Having now reviewed the discovery produced by the government, it is clear that Ms. Maxwell was not at all the “master spy” the government makes her out to be and was not wrapping the phone in order to evade detection by law enforcement. First, the cellphone in question was subscribed in the name of “Terramar Project, Inc.,” which is easily identifiable through a simple Google search as Ms. Maxwell's charity. Second, Ms. Maxwell used the phone to make calls as late as May 2020, just before her arrest. She would never have used the phone if she had been concerned that the authorities were using it to track her. Third, Ms. Maxwell had another phone subscribed in the name of “G Max” that she was using as her primary phone, which was not covered. It would make no sense for her to try to wrap one phone in tin foil to avoid detection and not the other. 24 DOJ-OGR-00001126 --- PAGE BREAK --- Indeed, the discovery reflects that it was not hard at all for the government to locate Ms. Maxwell when they wanted to find her by tracking her primary phone. In sum, the cellphone clearly shows that Ms. Maxwell was not "good at" hiding or that she was avoiding arrest, as the government claimed. (Tr. 31-32). She was trying to protect herself as best as she could from harassment by the press, not capture by law enforcement. Moreover, this should not be a bar to granting bail. The proposed conditions ensure her presence at home in plain sight of (and the security guards), GPS-monitored, and under strict Pretrial supervision. D. Ms. Maxwell Has Waived Her Extradition Rights and Could Not Seek Refuge in the United Kingdom or France At the initial hearing, the government argued that Ms. Maxwell, a naturalized U.S. citizen who has lived in the United States for almost 30 years, might flee to the United Kingdom or France if granted bail, despite the fact that she did not leave the country for nearly a year after Epstein's arrest. (Dkt. 22 at 6.) The government asserted in its reply brief that France "does not extradite its citizens to the United States pursuant to French law." (Id.) At the bail hearing, the government represented that "France will not extradite a French citizen to the United States as a matter of law, even if the defendant is a dual citizen of the United States," and that extradition by the United Kingdom would be "lengthy" and "uncertain" with bail "very likely" pending the extradition proceeding. (Tr. 27.) These assertions are incorrect, particularly given Ms. Maxwell's irrevocable waiver of her extradition rights with respect to both the United Kingdom and France. As we noted for the Court at the initial hearing, the concern that Ms. Maxwell would attempt to flee the United States is entirely unfounded given that Ms. Maxwell had every motive and opportunity to flee after the arrest and death of Jeffrey Epstein, but chose to remain in this --- PAGE BREAK --- Mr. Julié opines that the French entity with jurisdiction over the legality of extradition requests would not oppose Ms. Maxwell's extradition on the ground that she is a French citizen, and that it is "highly unlikely that the French government would refuse to issue and execute an extradition decree" against her. (Id. at 2). Mr. Julié bases his opinion largely on (i) Ms. Maxwell's U.S. citizenship; (ii) her irrevocable waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United States; (iii) the fact that the issue would arise only if Ms. Maxwell had fled to France in violation of strict bail conditions in the United States; (iv) the fact that a failure to extradite would obligate French authorities to try Ms. Maxwell in French courts for the same 25-year-old conduct alleged in the indictment, which did not take place in France; and (v) France's diplomatic interest in accommodating an extradition request from the United States. (Id.). Mr. Julié adds that the extradition process would likely be "disposed of expediently"; where the requesting state emphasizes the urgent nature of the extradition request, "the extradition decree is generally issued in only a few weeks." (Id. at 2-3). And in any event, while the extradition proceedings are pending, "the French judicial authorities would most certainly decide that [Ms. Maxwell] has to remain in custody given her flight from the USA and the violation of her bail terms and conditions in this requesting State." (Id. at 12). Ms. Maxwell has no intention of fleeing the country and has relinquished her rights to contest extradition. She has always maintained her innocence and will continue to fight the allegations against her here in the United States, as she has in the past. Even if she were to flee after being granted bail (which she will not), it is likely that Ms. Maxwell would be extradited expeditiously from France or the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the Court should give no weight in the bail analysis to the fact that Ms. Maxwell is a dual citizen of these countries.8 8 Ms. Maxwell would also have very little incentive to flee to France. According to recent press reports, French authorities recently broadened their existing criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to include Ms. Maxwell. See --- PAGE BREAK --- a very small fraction of the discovery pertains in any way to the individuals we believe to be the three complainants named in the indictment, and none of it corroborates any allegations of "grooming" or sexual assault or a conspiracy with Epstein involving Ms. Maxwell. For example, the government represented to the Court that it had "diary entries" that corroborated the witness testimony, suggesting that more than one of the complainants had kept contemporaneous diaries that implicated Ms. Maxwell. (Dkt. 4 at 5). The discovery produced thus far contains only [REDACTED]. In addition, the flight records that the government touted at the bail hearing, which include [REDACTED]. --- PAGE BREAK --- Case1:20-cr-03360-AJN Document 192 Filed 03/24/21 Page 42 of 45 exaggerated response to Epstein's death, effectively punishing Ms. Maxwell for the BOP's own negligence with respect to Epstein.11 Counsel has attempted to address the restrictions in numerous letters, emails and calls to the MDC warden, the MDC legal department, and the prosecutors, but to no avail. Rather than repeating these points here at length, we refer the Court to our letter to the MDC warden, dated October 29, 2020, which details the most serious and extraordinarily restrictive conditions of confinement.12 These include: - De Facto Solitary Confinement - Excessive Surveillance - Excessive Scanning and Strip Searching - Deprivation of Food - Deprivation of Sleep - Deprivation of Communication with Family and Friends - Compromised Communication with Legal Counsel The conditions of Ms. Maxwell's detention are utterly inappropriate, and totally disproportionate for a non-violent pretrial detainee with no prior criminal history facing non-violent charges a quarter-century old. Moreover, they adversely impact her ability to prepare her defense and compromise her physical health and psychological wellbeing. In addition to these intolerable conditions, Ms. Maxwell has had to contend with numerous unacceptable delays and technical problems with the discovery that the government has produced to her thus far. We have raised these issues with the prosecutors on numerous occasions. As we advised the Court in our letter of October 23, 2020, defense counsel first 11 These conditions are especially inappropriate because Ms. Maxwell has been an exemplary inmate and has not received any disciplinary infractions since her arrest. In fact, she has been made a suicide watch inmate, which is the highest and most trusted responsibility that an inmate can have. It is the height of irony that Ms. Maxwell is being constantly surveilled as if she were a suicide risk when she, herself, is trusted enough (if she were ever released from isolation) to monitor inmates who are truly at risk of suicide. 12 The Warden never responded to the letter. In our response to the government's 90-day status report concerning MDC conditions, counsel requested that the Warden provide a first-hand report to the Court and counsel. Following Court directive for a report from the MDC, MDC Legal submitted a letter that recited BOP policy but failed to address a number of concerns. 36 DOJ-OGR-00001138 --- PAGE BREAK --- of release); United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (ordering each of two defendants to "execute and file with the Clerk of the Court a waiver of extradition applicable to any nation or foreign territory in which he may be found as a condition of his continued release"); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 132-33 (D.D.C. 2004) (requiring Israeli citizen who lived in South Africa and had "no ties to the United States" to sign waiver of rights not to be extradited under Israeli and South African extradition treaties with United States); United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (ordering as a condition of release that defendants "execute waivers of challenges to extradition from any nation where they may be found"). Moreover, a defendant's waiver of the right to appeal an extradition order has been recognized as an indication of the defendant's intent not to flee. See, e.g., United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (Judge Keenan found defendant's extradition appeal waiver "manifests an intention to remain here and face the charges against him"). In response to the government's assertions, Ms. Maxwell has obtained the accompanying reports of experts in United Kingdom and French extradition law, who have analyzed the likelihood that Ms. Maxwell, in the event she were to flee to the United Kingdom or France, would be able to resist extradition to the United States after having executed a waiver of her right to do so. Both have concluded that it is highly unlikely that she would be able to resist extradition successfully. United Kingdom. With respect to the United Kingdom, submitted herewith is a report from David Perry ("Perry Rep."), a U.K. barrister who is widely considered one of the United Kingdom's preeminent extradition practitioners. (Perry Rep. Annex B ¶ 2.1) (attached as Exhibit U). Mr. Perry has acted on behalf of many overseas governments in extradition proceedings; has --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S THIRD MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BAIL Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 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, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell DOJ-OGR-00001233