Document 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 19 CR 490 (RMB) JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Bail Decision -------------------------------x New York, N.Y. July 18, 2019 11:30 a.m. Before: HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN District Judge APPEARANCES GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ALEXANDER ROSSMILLER MAURENE R. COMEY ALISON G. MOE Assistant United States Attorneys MARTIN WEINBERG MARC FERNICH JOMES BROCHIN MICHAEL MILLER Attorneys for Defendant Also Present: AMANDA YOUNG - Special Agent FBI PAUL BYRNE - Detective NYPD JOHN MOSCATO - Pretrial Services Officer SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 40, 01/12/2023, 3451920, Page1 of 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500 MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT Docket Number(s): 22-1426 Caption [use short title] Motion for: Extension of time to file Appellant's brief Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought; Appellant seeks permission to file her brief, currently due on January 30, 2023, to be filed on or beofre February 28, 2023. United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell MOVING PARTY: Ghislaine Maxwell OPPOSING PARTY: United States of America Plaintiff Defendant Appellant/Petitioner Appellee/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY: John M. Leventhal OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Lara Pomerantz John M. Leventhal, Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, P.C. Lara Pomerantz, United States Attorney's Office 546 Fifth Avenue, 6th Floor One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10036 New York, New York 10007 Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Please check appropriate boxes: Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Yes No (explain): Opposing counsel's position on motion: Unopposed Opposed Don't Know Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: Yes No Don't Know Is oral argument on motion requested? Yes No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted) Has argument date of appeal been set? Yes No If yes, enter date: Signature of Moving Attorney: John K Leventhal Date: 1/12/23 Service by: CM/ECF Other [Attach proof of service] Form T-1080 (rev.12-13) DOJ-OGR-00020602 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 40 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -v- Michael Thomas, Defendant(s). Defendant Michael Thomas hereby voluntarily consents to participate in the following proceeding via videoconferencing: Initial Appearance/Appointment of Counsel Arraignment (If on Felony Information, Defendant Must Sign Separate Waiver of Indictment Form) Preliminary Hearing on Felony Complaint Bail/Revocation/Detention Hearing X Status and/or Scheduling Conference Misdemeanor Plea/Trial/Sentence Defendant's Signature (Judge may obtain verbal consent on Record and Sign for Defendant) Michael Thomas Print Defendant's Name Montell Figgins Defense Counsel's Signature Montell Figgins Print Defense Counsel's Name This proceeding was conducted by reliable videoconferencing technology. September 10, 2020 Date New York, New York ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge --- PAGE BREAK --- 1 (Case called) THE COURT: I had hoped to have a written decision and order by now, which I don't, one that is regarding the release/remand of Mr. Epstein, which has been the subject of multiple written submissions and, as you all know, an in-court hearing on Monday, July 15, 2019. It is not quite physically produced yet and it needs to be cite checked, but I should have it on the docket in the next hour, two hours at most. What I will do, however, is state the conclusions in the decision and order, which I had said I would do, and summarize very briefly the contents of the ruling for you. Starting with my conclusions, the government's application for continued remand is hereby granted and the defense application for pretrial release is respectfully hereby denied. Written opinion to follow. In that opinion I will deal with all, I'll try to, all the principal issues which have been briefed. Even though it is not entirely necessary or legally required to consider both dangerousness to others and to the community as well as risk of flight, I have done so. I also deal with the defense's proposed bail package. There is obviously significant public interest in all of these legal issues, so I tried to cover them all as best I could. There are the following headings in the decision and order. First is a background section, followed by counsel's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000606 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 40, 01/12/2023, 3451920, Page2 of 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SECOND CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, - against - GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No.: 22-1426 AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT- APPELLANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF X JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of New York and a partner of the law firm of AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS PC., attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, hereby affirms the following statements, under penalties of perjury: 1. That I am a partner at the law firm of AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS P.C., attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell (hereinafter "Appellant"), and as such, am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action. 3. On July 15, 2022, I filed a Notice of Appearance in this matter so that trial counsel could withdraw. 4. On July 28, 2022, I filed a scheduling request asking that Appellant's brief be due on January 30, 2023, based on the size of the record. 5. Soon after this Court granted our scheduling request, we were notified that the New York Court of Appeals had granted us leave on another matter which also involved a voluminous record and several issues of law which required substantial time and resources. 6. The work of our small team of experienced appellate attorneys has been divided between these two cases. In addition, one of our appellate attorneys is dealing with a serious health condition. This has impacted his ability to work on the case. 7. Another factor that has affected our ability to complete this brief by the current 1 DOJ-OGR-00020603 --- PAGE BREAK --- 1 submissions. Those are the written submissions: principally the indictment, the legal principles governing release versus remand, the presumption of remand in 18 U.S.C. section 1591 cases, danger to others and the community. This topic has seven subsections and fills over ten pages of the decision and order. I think it is fair to say that it is the heart of this decision, that is to say, dealing with danger to others and to the community. Then I deal with risk of flight. That has four subsections or factors, which are substantially the same factors that are used to analyze dangerousness. Then, finally, the bail package proposed by the defense. Specifically, I find in the decision and order that the government has established dangerousness to others and to the community by clear and convincing evidence and also that the government has established risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence. I also reject the proposed bail package as irretrievably inadequate and go on in some detail concerning what I consider to be its deficiencies. Incidentally, I am not suggesting that a different bail package would be appropriate because I doubt that any bail package can overcome danger to the community. I focus then on dangerousness to others, most certainly including the minor victims in this case and prospective victims as well. I cite and quote, for example, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 40, 01/12/2023, 3451920, Page3 of 4 deadline of January 30, 2023, is the difficulty we have had communicating with our client who is incarcerated in Tallahassee, Florida, with limited phone access. 8. We have been working diligently on this case and have identified several issues that we believe merit appellate review. However, there is still considerable work to be done. We find that we need an additional month beyond the current deadline to complete this important work responsibly. 9. We believe that the above represents extraordinary circumstances that justify the relief sought. Denial of this application would cause irreparable harm to our client. 10. Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Rohrbach informed me today that Respondent United States Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York does not object to the Court granting our motion for an additional one-month extension of time to file Appellant's brief. 11. We respectfully request that the Court extend our time to file our brief to February 28, 2023. We are cognizant that the Court warned that "[f]urther extensions of time will be disfavored." For this reason, we request only the additional time that we believe is absolutely necessary in order to effectively represent our client. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court issue an Order granting Appellant's motion in its entirety, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: January 12, 2023 New York, New York Respectfully Submitted, AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, PC By: JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ESQ. (Ret.) Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 2 DOJ-OGR-00020604 --- PAGE BREAK --- the compelling testimony of Annie Farmer and Courtney Wild, who testified that they fear for their safety and the safety of others if Mr. Epstein were to be released. I also point out that the presumption of remand, as opposed to the presumption of release, is unusual in our jurisprudence and that it attaches only to very serious crimes, such as sex trafficking involving minor victims, as in this case some allegedly as young as age 14. I also discuss evidence of intimidation and threats and compensation paid to potential witnesses and the facts surrounding whether or not Mr. Epstein has been compliant with his legal obligations as a registered sex offender. When discussing risk of flight, which you obviously can tell comes after, in my analysis, dangerousness to the community, when discussing that aspect, risk of flight, the decision speaks to the seriousness of the charged crimes, to Mr. Epstein's great wealth and his vast resources, which include private planes and frequent international travel and also a foreign residence in Paris. I mention the items very recently seized from Mr. Epstein's New York City mansion pursuant to lawful search warrants, which include sexually explicit photos and discs, some $70,000 in cash, diamonds, and an expired Austrian passport with Mr. Epstein's photo but with a name that is different from Jeffrey Epstein, and also contains a reference SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 40, 01/12/2023, 3451920, Page4 of 4 546 5th Avenue, 6th Floor New York, New York 10036 3 DOJ-OGR-00020605 --- PAGE BREAK --- 1 to Saudi Arabia as a residence. 2 I think I have given you a fair account of the 3 decision or order. As I said before, the written version in 4 its complete form, which will be about 30 to 34 pages long I 5 imagine, I hope will be available reasonably soon. 6 One piece of business in light of today's ruling. I 7 thought I would schedule a conference with the parties for 8 Wednesday, July 31, at 11:00 a.m. That is not fixed in stone. 9 If you all want to meet and confer and let me know if that is a 10 convenient date, or I'm happy to accommodate you with another 11 date as well. 12 For the moment, I'll tentatively schedule a conference 13 for July 31st at 11:00 a.m. and ask if there is an application 14 for exclusion of speedy trial. 15 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. The government moves to 16 exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act from today's date until 17 July 31st. 18 THE COURT: I am going to find under 18 United States 19 Code section 3161 that adjournment to and including July 31 at 20 11:00 a.m. is appropriate and warrants exclusion of the 21 adjourned time from speedy trial calculations. I further find 22 that the exclusion is designed to prevent any possible 23 miscarriage of justice, to facilitate these proceedings, and to 24 guarantee effective representation of and preparation by all 25 counsel for both parties, both sides. Thus, the need for SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 40 Filed 07/26/19 Page 6 of 6 6 exclusion and the ends of justice outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). Finally, a word about the proposed conference. From my point of view, it would be more or less a scheduling/case management type conference, but I'm happy to consider any issues that you might have at that time. I think that's it. Everybody, thank you for being here. We are adjourned. (Adjourned) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000610